1. Petition against penalty under Section 114, Customs Act — Challenge to order-in-appeal dismissing appeal for non-compliance with pre-deposit requirement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 19940
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anil Kshetrpal, Shail Jain, JJ
Sinder Pal – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Patparganj, New Delhi – Respondent
W.P.(C) 3002/2021
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Akhil Krishan Maggu, Vikas Sareen, Oshin Maggu, Aryan Nagpal, Palak Sarna
For the Respondents: Harpreet Singh, Iqbal Singh Bedi, Suhani Mathur, Jatin Kumar Gaur
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Akhil Krishan Maggu, Vikas Sareen, Oshin Maggu, Aryan Nagpal, Palak Sarna
For the Respondents: Harpreet Singh, Iqbal Singh Bedi, Suhani Mathur, Jatin Kumar Gaur
The High Court will not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to bypass a statutory appellate mechanism or mandatory pre-deposit requirements under the Customs Act, 1962, when an efficacious alternative remedy is available.
Headnote:(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Existence of an efficacious statutory mechanism for redressal of grievances generally precludes the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly where the controversy involves disputed questions of fact or merits. (Para 17)
(B) Statutory Pre-deposit - Mandatory Requirement - The requirement of pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, is a statutory condition for entertaining an appeal and cannot be bypassed by invoking writ jurisdiction on the grounds of financial hardship. (Para 21, 22)
(C) Principles of Natural Justice - Denial of Cross-examination - A mere assertion of violation of natural justice does not automatically justify the entertainment of a writ petition when an efficacious statutory remedy exists, especially if the issue is intrinsically connected to the merits of the adjudication. (Para 25)
Issues: Whether the Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to examine the merits of a challenge to an Order-in-Original when an efficacious statutory appellate remedy is available under the Customs Act, 1962.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- customs law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued denial of cross-examination and hardship; Respondents contended efficacious statutory remedy existed and pre-deposit was mandatory. (Para 12 , 13 )
3. Act provides complete code; alternative remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction but court ordinarily declines to bypass statutory framework. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 )
4. Mere assertion of natural justice violation does not warrant bypassing efficacious statutory remedy; pre-deposit condition cannot be circumvented via writ. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 )
5. Petition dismissed on ground of availability of efficacious alternate statutory remedy; liberty granted to pursue remedy before competent forum. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 )
6. Can a High Court entertain a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 when an efficacious statutory remedy exists?
No, ordinarily the writ jurisdiction is not exercised to bypass the statutory framework, particularly where the controversy involves disputed questions of fact or merits. (Para 15 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 27 )
7. Is non-compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement a valid ground for rejecting an appeal?
Yes, the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot examine the merits of an appeal if the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act is not complied with. (Para 20 , 21 , 23 )
8. Does an allegation of violation of principles of natural justice automatically warrant invocation of writ jurisdiction?
No, a mere assertion of natural justice violation does not by itself require the High Court to entertain a writ petition when an efficacious statutory remedy is available. (Para 25 , 26 )
O R D E R
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:
1. The issue which arises for consideration in the present Petition is whether this Court, in exercise of its extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, ought to examine the Petitioner’s challenge to the Order-in-Original dated 26.03.2018 and Order-in-Appeal dated 10.12.2020 dismissing the Petitioner’s Appeal for failure to make the mandatory pre-deposit, when the Petitioner has an efficacious statutory appellate remedy before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’].
2. Through the present Petition, the Petitioner seeks quashing of Order-in-Original No. 115/ADC/ICD/PPG/2018 dated 26.03.2018 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Patparganj, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Order-in- Original’], whereby, inter alia, a penalty of Rs.3,00,00,000/- was imposed upon the Petitioner under Section 114 of the Act. The Petitioner also seeks a direction for permitting cross-examination of certain persons whose statements were relied upon by the adjudicating authority. The Petitioner further challenges the Order-in-Appeal dated 10.12.2020, whereby the appeal preferred by him under Section 128 of the Act was rejected for non-compliance with the statutory requirement of pre-deposit.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
3. The controversy arises out of an investigation conducted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [hereinafter referred to as ‘DRI’] concerning an alleged attempt to export red sanders wood in the guise of carpets. On 14.11.2014, the DRI intercepted a container bearing No. CRXU3319411, which had been loaded on truck bearing registration No. HR-55F-5525 at the Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi. The container was covered by Shipping Bill No. 5994448 dated 11.11.2014, under which carpets were declared for export.
4. Upon examination of the container, 142 logs of red sanders wood, weighing approximately 4.43 MT, were allegedly recovered concealed beneath carpets. The red sanders wood had not been declared in the shipping bill. The goods were consequently seized under the Act.
5. During the course of the investigation, the DRI also searched premises situated at Gannaur, Haryana, which were allegedly being used in connection with the export operation. During the search, red sanders wood, carpets and a truck were also seized. Statements of various persons, including Sukhwinder Singh, Gurpreet Singh and Chandeep Singh, were recorded under Section 108 of the Act. The investigation also resulted in the recording of the Petitioner’s statement on 14.03.2015.
6. The Petitioner was thereafter issued a Show Cause Notice dated 11.05.2015, proposing, inter alia, imposition of penalty upon him under Section 114 of the Act. The Petitioner contested the allegations. In the course of the adjudication proceedings, he disputed his alleged connection with the exporter and the impugned export transaction. He also questioned the reliance placed upon the statements of Sukhwinder Singh, Gurpreet Singh and Chandeep Singh and sought an opportunity to cross-examine them.
7. The adjudicating authority, however, proceeded to adjudicate the Show Cause Notice and passed the Order-in-Original dated 26.03.2018. In the Order-in-Original, the adjudicating authority, inter alia, relied upon the statements of the aforesaid persons as well as the statement of the Petitioner recorded under Section 108 of the Act. The adjudicating authority also considered the Petitioner’s contention regarding cross-examination. It observed, inter alia, that the Petitioner, in his statement dated 14.03.2015, had himself accepted various allegations and the contents of the statements and other material relied upon in the Show Cause Notice.
8. The adjudicating authority ultimately concluded that the Petitioner had, by his acts and omissions, rendere
