ORDER :

1. The writ on hand is filed, challenging the order impugned in original passed by the second respondent dated 27.03.2021.

2. The said order is issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The introductory paragraph of the impugned order itself reveals that an appeal against the order lies with the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Custom House, 5th Floor, Chennai – 600 001, under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, within 60 days of communication of this order. The appeal should be in duplicate and should be filed in form CA-1 appended to the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982. An appeal against this order shall lie before the Tribunal on payment of 7.5% of the duty demanded where the duty or duty and penalty are in dispute, or penalty, where penalty alone is in dispute. Thus, the procedures as contemplated are also informed to the petitioner in the first paragraph of the impugned order dated 27.03.2021.

3. Inspite of the fact that a statutory appeal is contemplated under the Customs Act, the petitioner has chosen to file the present writ petition mainly on the ground that the procedures as contemplated are not followed and the Principles of Natural Justice has been violated.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner contended that no show cause notice has been issued before passing the impugned order by the second respondent. However, the second respondent claims that a show cause notice dated 10.03.2017 has been issued. Thus, the impugned order is in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had no opportunity to put forth their grounds and the impugned order has been passed, based on the unilateral decision taken by the authorities and thus, preferring an appeal may not be necessary. Further, the petitioner made an attempt to deal with the merits of the case, which cannot be adjudicated elaborately in a writ proceedings.

6. The learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents disputed the said contention by stating that the show cause notice had already been issued to the writ petitioner and the said show cause notice had been referred in the proceedings dated 01.03.2021. The writ petition is filed, based on the incorrect facts and the impugned order reveals that the appeal is to be filed under the Customs Act by the petitioner by following the procedures as contemplated. Thus, the writ is to be dismissed.

7. This Court is of the considered opinion that statutory appellate remedy provided under the Act is a valuable right conferred on a litigant. Thus, such a right cannot be dispensed with in a routine manner, even by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Facilitating an aggrieved person to prefer an appeal, has got a definite meaning and an opportunity is provided to consider the original documents and the grounds raised by the aggrieved parties. Therefore, the appellate remedy contemplated under the statute cannot be dispensed with in a routine manner in a writ proceedings. In all such cases, the appeal remedy is to be exhausted by the aggrieved person by following the procedures as contemplated. The appellate authorities are competent to grant even the interim orders and consider the appeal on merits by affording opportunity to all the parties. Thus, entertaining a writ in the presence of an appellate remedy is not preferable.

8. In the present case, the impugned order itself reveals that the petitioner, if aggrieved, has to prefer an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Custom House, 5th Floor, Chennai – 600 001, under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, within 60 days of communication of the impugned order. The petitioner, instead of preferring an appeal, has chosen to move the present writ petition and such an approach cannot be appreciated by this Court, in view of the fact that the Appellate authorit