An unchallenged adjudication order cannot be indirectly contested through a later writ petition.

On returning from Bangkok on 22 March 2024, the petitioner was intercepted at IGI Airport after opting for the green channel, and Customs detained his 98-gram gold kada.

By Order-in-Original (OIO) dated 27 May 2024, the Assistant Commissioner ordered confiscation but permitted redemption on payment of a fine of ₹60,000, applicable customs duty at the tariff valuation on the date of detention, and a penalty of ₹50,000.

The petitioner did not challenge the OIO; the Customs Department pursued statutory remedies, while a prior writ petition resulted in directions for release in accordance with the OIO.

After the kada was released upon payment of the amounts, the petitioner filed this petition challenging the customs duty of ₹2,71,193 and detention charges of ₹2,02,842.

Whether the petitioner could challenge the customs duty condition in the OIO through a later writ petition after not challenging the OIO itself

Whether the recovery of detention charges was shown to be contrary to statutory provisions

The OIO’s redemption condition was made under Section 125(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, and its penalty was imposed under Sections 112(a) and 112(b).

The Court applied the principle that a party cannot use a later proceeding to indirectly challenge an unchallenged order after failing to pursue remedies against it.

It also held that extraordinary writ jurisdiction was not warranted where no case was made out that the detention charges contravened statutory provisions.

The OIO expressly conditioned release on payment of the redemption fine, applicable customs duty, and penalty.

The petitioner had not challenged those conditions, and the prior writ proceeding had directed release in accordance with the OIO rather than adjudicating its validity.

The Court therefore declined to permit an indirect challenge to the duty condition in this petition.

It separately found no basis to conclude that the detention charges were contrary to statute.

Finding no basis to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction, it dismissed the petition.