Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked to Circumvent Efficacious Alternative Statutory Remedy Under the Customs Act

The petitioner arrived at IGI Airport, New Delhi from Bangkok on April 3, 2024, and was intercepted by customs officials while crossing the Green Channel.

Officials seized a gold chain weighing 100 grams (valued at Rs. 6,38,040/-) under Sections 111(d), (i), (j), and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962.

An Order-in-Original dated February 20, 2025, formally confiscated the gold and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Section 112.

The petitioner challenged this order via a writ petition, alleging he was illegally detained, coerced into signing documents, denied a fair hearing, and not offered the statutory option of redemption under Section 125.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available under the Customs Act, 1962.

2. Whether the petitioner demonstrated exceptional circumstances or procedural illegalities sufficient to bypass the statutory appellate mechanism.

The court applied the well-settled principle of "alternative remedy," establishing that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be invoked when an efficacious statutory remedy is available, save in exceptional circumstances.

This is governed by the procedural framework of the Customs Act, 1962, specifically providing for appeals against Orders-in-Original passed by competent authorities.

The court further noted that the statutory mechanism cannot be circumvented to bypass periods of limitation.

The Court observed that the Order-in-Original is a challengeable decision under the Customs Act's own appellate hierarchy.

It reasoned that all taxpayer grievances—including factual disputes regarding the nature of the gold as "personal effects," allegations of procedural irregularities, and the failure to provide a redemption option—fall within the competence of the appellate authority to adjudicate on both facts and law.

The Court found no "exceptional circumstances" to justify a departure from standard procedure.

Crucially, the Court inferred that the petitioner filed the writ petition primarily because the statutory limitation period for filing an appeal had likely expired, and held that Article 226 cannot be used to bypass such statutory timelines.

The High Court held that the petitioner must utilize the statutory appellate process rather than seeking extraordinary relief under Article 226. The writ petition and all pending applications were dismissed, with no order as to costs, leaving it open for the petitioner to pursue a statutory appeal in accordance with the law.