Customs Act 1962 - The Legal Chamber

Alternative Remedy Rule Strengthened: Supreme Court Says Writ Petition Not Maintainable If Appeal to High Court Was Available

2Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Alternative Remedy Rule Strengthened: Supreme Court Says Writ Petition Not Maintainable If Appeal to High Court Was Available

This Supreme Court judgment reiterates the principle that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy, especially one before the High Court itself, is a valid ground for refusing to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It emphasizes that discretionary writ relief is generally unavailable where a litigant has, through their own fault, failed to exhaust an equally efficacious alternative forum provided by statute. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Rikhab Chand Jain, faced proceedings concerning 252.177 kg of allegedly smuggled silver seized on September 27, 1992. The Additional Collector of Customs, respondent no. 3, ordered the confiscation of the silver and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the appellant via an order dated May 7, 1996. The appellant app...

Supreme Court Says Export Incentives Can’t Be Rejected on Technicalities :Substance Over Form

The Supreme Court held that an inadvertent procedural error in shipping bills, duly corrected under Section 149 of the Customs Act, cannot extinguish an exporter's substantive right to claim benefits under the MEIS scheme. The Court emphasized that beneficial export promotion policies must be construed liberally, and administrative rigidity cannot override statutory entitlements. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, an exporter of corn starch, filed 54 shipping bills electronically through a customs broker for exports made between July and October 2017. The broker inadvertently failed to change the default declaration for claiming incentives under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) from “No” to “Yes”. This clerical error prevented the automatic transmission of the bill...

Supreme Court Orders Refund to Patanjali Foods: Bank Guarantee Encashment ≠ Duty Payment

The Supreme Court held that encashment of bank guarantees furnished as interim security for disputed customs duty does not constitute "payment of duty" under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, the doctrine of unjust enrichment is inapplicable to refund claims arising from such encashment. The Revenue must refund such amounts with interest when the underlying duty demand is invalidated by court order, without insisting on compliance with Section 27. Facts Of The Case: M/s M.P. Glychem Industries Ltd. (later merged into Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd., now Patanjali Foods Ltd.) imported crude degummed soyabean oil at Jamnagar in 2002. The Customs Department demanded higher duty based on a tariff value fixed under a notification issued under Section 14(2) of the Customs Act, 1962...