Court emphasizes the necessity of utilizing statutory appeals under the Customs Act, 1962, dismissing the plea for exceptional circumstances.
In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Nand Kishor Sharma challenging the confiscation of his gold chain under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The bench, comprising Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul, ruled that the petitioner must pursue the statutory remedy of appeal rather than invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the absence of exceptional circumstances.
The case arose when Sharma, traveling from Bangkok to New Delhi, was intercepted at the airport on April 3, 2024, with a gold chain weighing 100 grams valued at Rs. 6,38,040. The Customs authorities seized the chain, alleging violations under Sections 111(d), 111(i), 111(j), and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the same Act.
Sharma's petition sought the quashing of the order-in-original dated February 20, 2025, and the release of the confiscated gold, arguing procedural irregularities, the absence of reasonable belief for seizure, and coercion during the customs process. However, the court underscored the established legal principle that the writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when an efficacious statutory remedy is available, unless exceptional circumstances are shown, which the petitioner failed to demonstrate.
Justice Digpaul, delivering the judgment, noted that the petitioner did not utilize the appellate mechanism provided under the Customs Act, which could address his grievances regarding procedural lapses and denial of opportunity. The court also observed that entertaining the petition would allow circumvention of the statutory process, especially since the appeal period had lapsed, indicating an attempt to bypass the statutory limitation.
The court concluded by dismissing the petition and advised the petitioner to seek redress through the statutory appellate process, maintaining the integrity of the legal framework established under the Customs Act. No orders were made regarding the costs of the proceedings.
Bottom line:-
Exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not permissible in the presence of an alternative statutory remedy unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Customs Act, 1962 Sections 111(d), 111(i), 111(j), 111(m), 112(a), 112(b), 124(a), 125
Nand Kishor Sharma v. Commissioner of Customs, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2889703
