Ajin W vs. The Union Of INDIA Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Finance

Facts

The petitioner, Ajin W, filed a writ petition challenging a confiscation order (Exhibit P-1) passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs. The order pertains to the confiscation of two gold chains, one gold ring, and one gold pendant weighing 100.8 grams, with a market value of Rs. 5,55,408/-. A penalty of Rs. 6,000/- was also imposed on the petitioner. The seized items were taken from the petitioner's possession under Sections 111(d), 111(i), 111(l), and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment notes that the impugned order is appealable before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128 of the Customs Act, and the extended time for filing such an appeal was expiring on the day of the judgment.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order, Exhibit P-1, is appealable before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. While the extended time for filing the appeal was expiring on the date of the judgment, the Court, considering that the writ petition had been pending, granted the petitioner three weeks from the date of the order to file an appeal. The Court directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal on its merits without considering the delay in filing. The Court explicitly stated that it had not gone into the merits of the case because disputed questions of fact were involved, which are not suitable for adjudication in writ jurisdiction. The ratio decidendi is that where a statutory remedy of appeal exists and disputed facts are involved, the High Court may direct the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy, granting condonation of delay if appropriate.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962? The petitioner approached the High Court by way of a writ petition. The respondents, represented by the Union of India and its officials, did not explicitly argue against the maintainability of the writ petition in the provided text. However, the Court itself noted the existence of an appealable order and the availability of a statutory remedy. The Court also observed that disputed questions of fact were involved, which are typically not adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The petitioner's primary contention, implicitly, was that the confiscation order and penalty were unjust or illegal, necessitating intervention by the High Court.