High CourtsSingle Bench(2015) 04 MAD CK 0248

Page Industries Limited vs Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II) and Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 29 April 2015

HON’BLE JUDGES
T. Raja, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition Nos. 13335 to 13337 of 2015

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 331 words

T. Raja, J.

1.

Challenging the impugned orders passed by the first respondent/the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), Chennai, M/s. Page Industries Limited, Bangalore/petitioner herein, have filed the present writ petitions.

2.

Assailing the impugned orders, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent has not passed a speaking order as per Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. Drawing the notice of this Court page No. 87 of the typed set of papers, it is submitted that the respondent has admitted that the Group, which is bound to issue a speaking order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, has not issued the speaking order. It is further submitted that the Commissioner of Appeals, while relying on the downloaded particulars from the website of junglee.com, snapdeal.com and amazon.in, has proceeded to decide the matter without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the materials relied on by him.

3.

In my opinion, the above said argument of the petitioner cannot be a basis to circumvent the appeal remedy available for the petitioner as per Section 129(A) of the Customs Act, 1962, for, the said Section provides an efficacious alternative remedy before the Appellate Tribunal against the order or 4 the decision passed by the Commissioner of the Customs as an adjudicating authority. That apart, in the impugned order itself, it has been clearly stated that any person aggrieved by the order can prefer an appeal to the CESTAT under Section 129A of the Customs Act. Therefore, I am of the view that these writ petitions filed challenging the impugned orders, without availing an alternative remedy provided under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, cannot be maintained and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy provided under the Customs Act, 1962.

4.

In fine, for the reasons stated above, the writ petitions are dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.