Aditya Automation vs. Principal Commissioner Of Customs Import Mumbai Customs Zone Iii
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, Aditya Automation, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 28 May 2025 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Import Mumbai Customs Zone III. The Petitioner contended that the order was without jurisdiction as the Principal Commissioner refused to follow an Advance Ruling Authority's ruling, alleging it was based on misrepresented facts. The Petitioner argued that the Commissioner disregarded three certificates from charter engineers without obtaining expert evidence, constituting a breach of natural justice. Despite having an alternative remedy, the Petitioner sought to bypass it, citing the order's alleged lack of jurisdiction and breach of natural justice, referencing precedents like Whirlpool Corporation and Oberoi Constructions.
Held
The Court held that the argument regarding the impugned order being wholly without jurisdiction could not be accepted at face value, as it required investigation into facts, which could be best undertaken by the Appellate Tribunal. Similarly, the Court found that this was not a case where the Petitioner was not issued a show cause notice or not heard, and the argument that relevant material was not considered could be raised in appeal. The Court reasoned that to invoke the exceptions to the rule of exhausting alternative remedies, as laid down in Whirlpool and Oberoi Constructions, the Petitioner must demonstrate that the order is ex facie without jurisdiction or that the breach of natural justice is patent and undisputed on factual aspects. The Court found that the Petitioner had not established a case of that degree. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Appellate Tribunal under Sections 129A and 129B of the Customs Act has wide powers, including the power to remand the case for fresh adjudication, making the statutory remedy efficacious. Therefore, the Court declined to entertain the petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 28 May 2025, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, is wholly without jurisdiction, thereby justifying the invocation of writ jurisdiction despite an alternative statutory remedy under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962? (Question of law) 2. Whether the impugned order was passed in breach of the principles of natural justice, specifically by disregarding expert evidence (charter engineer certificates) without obtaining contrary expert opinion, thus warranting intervention by the High Court? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that the Principal Commissioner acted without jurisdiction by refusing to follow the Advance Ruling Authority's ruling and by disregarding expert evidence (charter engineer certificates) without obtaining contrary expert opinion, which amounts to a breach of natural justice. They relied on Whirlpool Corporation Vs Registrar of Trade Marks and Oberoi Constructions Ltd Vs Union of India & Ors to argue that the High Court should not relegate them to the alternative remedy. Respondent's Arguments: The Respondent argued that the impugned order was not without jurisdiction and that factual issues would need examination. They contended that the Petitioner was issued a show cause notice and was heard, thus there was no violation of natural justice. They asserted that the Petitioner had an alternative remedy.
Sections Cited
Section 129A, Section 129B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
36-WP-9550-2025-F.DOCX Amol IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURI ICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9550 OF 2025 Aditya Automation …Petitioner Versus Principal Commissioner of Customs Import Mumbai Customs Zone III …Respondent ______________________________________________________ Mr S S Patil, (through VC), for the Petitioner. Mr Ram Ochani, with Mr Sangeeta Yadav & Mr Umesh Gupta, for the Respondent. ______________________________________________________ CORAM M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATED: 21 July 2025 PC:-
Heard Mr Patil for the Petitioner and Mr Ochani for the Respondent.
This Petition challenges the order dated 28 May 2025 made by the Principal Commissioner of Customs.
The impugned order is appealable to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. Mr Patil however submits that the impugned order is wholly without juri iction because the Principal Commissioner has refused to follow the Advance Ruling Authority’s ruling on the alleged ground that the same was AMOL PREMNATH JADHAV AMOL PREMNATH JADHAV Date: 2025.07.24 18:19:44 +0530
36-WP-9550-2025-F.DOCX based on misrepresented facts. He further submitted that at least three certificates issued by charter engineers were produced, but the same have been wished away without bothering to obtain any expert evidence to the contrary. Mr Patil submits that non-consideration of such relevant material Union of India & Ors2 would apply, and the Petitioner should not be relegated to the alternative remedy under the statute.
Mr Ochani submits that there is no question of the impugned order being without juri iction, and in any event, factual issues will have to be examined. He submits that the Petitioner was duly issued a show cause notice and was heard by the Principal Commissioner. Therefore, this is not a case of violation of natural justice.
We have considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record.
The argument regarding the impugned order being wholly without juri iction cannot be accepted at face value. For effective consideration of this argument, investigation into facts, at least to a limited extent, would be necessary. The 1 1998 8 SC 1 2 (2025) 137 GSTR 601 36-WP-9550-2025-F.DOCX Advance Authority’s rulings are ordinarily confined to the facts in which they came to be issued. The issue of whether the ruling would apply to the facts at hand would require investigation, which can be best undertaken by the Appellate Tribunal under the Customs Act.
Similarly, this is not a case where the Petitioner was not issued any show cause notice or that the Petitioner was not heard before the impugned order was made. The argument that some material, which was relevant, has not been considered can always be raised in appeal and on this ground, the usual practice of exhaustion of alternate statutory remedies cannot be deviated from.
To bring the matter within the legal principles laid down in either Whirlpool (supra) or Oberoi Constructions (supra), the party must make out a case that the impugned order or notice is ex facie without juri iction or that the breach of natural justice is patent and admits of no serious dispute, particularly on factual aspects. In this case, we are concerned that a case of that degree has not been established by the Petitioner.
Furthermore, we note that under Sections 129A and 129B of the Customs Act, the Appellate Tribunal has been conferred wide and substantial powers to pass orders in appeal as it deems fit, confirming, modifying, or annulling the decision or order appealed against. The Appellate Tribunal is also empowered to refer the case back to the authority that passed the decision or order, with directions as the Appellate Tribunal may think fit, for a fresh adjudication or decision, as the case may be, after taking additional evidence, if necessary. 36-WP-9550-2025-F.DOCX Thus, the statutory remedy provided under the Customs Act is efficacious, and no case is made out to circumvent the same.
For the above reasons, we decline to entertain this Petition but leave it open to the Petitioner to avail of the alternate remedy under the Customs Act, if the Petitioner so chooses.
All contentions of all parties on merits are left open. Even the observations in this order are for the limited purpose of deciding the issue of exhaustion of alternate remedies, and the observations are not intended to reflect upon the merits and demerits of the matter.
This Petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the Petitioner to avail of the alternate statutory remedy, if it so desires. (Jitendra Jain, J) (M.S. Sonak, J)
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.