Ajay Sagar vs. Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Import)

Held

The Court held that while the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be taken away, it should be exercised only in rare and deserving cases where clear justification is made out. In this specific case, after examining the material gathered during the investigation, the statements attributed to the petitioner, and the conclusions drawn in the Order-in-Original, the Court found that the petitioner was complicit and actively involved in the evasion of duty and mis-declaration of imports. The Court concluded that the petitioner's case did not fall into the category of rare and exceptional circumstances warranting the invocation of extraordinary powers under Article 226. Therefore, the Court found the conclusions drawn by the respondents against the petitioner to be neither wholly perverse nor unsustainable, and the circumstances did not justify waiving the pre-deposit requirement.

Facts

The petitioner, Ajay Sagar, filed a writ petition seeking waiver of the pre-deposit requirement under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner argued that while the statutory discretion to waive pre-deposit due to undue hardship was removed by a Finance Act amendment, the High Court's constitutional power under Article 226 could still be invoked. The respondent, Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import), contested this. The petitioner relied on previous High Court judgments that allowed waiver in exceptional circumstances. The Court examined the petitioner's alleged involvement in mis-declaring imports and evading duty, based on statements and other evidence, including SMS exchanges.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Delhi High Court, in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, can waive the pre-deposit requirement stipulated under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, despite the deletion of the statutory discretion for waiver due to undue hardship. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the High Court's constitutional power under Article 226 is not extinguished by legislative amendments and can be exercised to grant relief in appropriate cases, particularly when undue hardship would be caused by the pre-deposit requirement. They relied on previous High Court decisions where waiver was granted in special circumstances. Respondent's contention: The respondent did not explicitly record arguments, but the judgment implies they contested the petitioner's claim for waiver based on the amended Section 129E and the evidence against the petitioner.