Dismissed

M/s.Gold Processors v. The Commissioner of Customs

Madras HC16 Oct 2024WA(MD)/1841/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Writ Appeal, the High Court dismissed the appellant's challenge to the lower court's order refusing entertainment of a Writ Petition. The Court held that where a pre-deposit is mandatory for filing an appeal, a Writ Petition is not maintainable, and the alternative remedy lies in the statutory appeal process.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal was dismissed; the appellant granted one month to file an appeal with authorities.

M/s.Gold Processors Vs The Commissioner of Customs — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.A.(MD).No.1841 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 16.10.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

W.A.(MD).No.1841 of 2024

¶7

Gold Processors, Represented by its Proprietor, Mr.Abishek Dhawan, Plot No.85, Pritam Singh Nagar, Punjab.

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

-vs-

¶10

1.The Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, New Harbour Estate, Tuticorin -628 004.

¶11

2.The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Customs (SIIB), Custom House, New Harbour Estate, Tuticorin – 628 004. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, against the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.8801 of 2022, dated

¶13

29.04.2022.

¶14

For Appellant : Mr.Saurabh Kapoor For Respondents : Mr.R.Gowri Shankar Standing Counsel

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________

¶16

_____________ Page 1 of 4_

¶17

W.A.(MD).No.1841 of 2024

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

[Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.]

¶20

Mr.R.Gowri Shankar, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents.

¶21

2.The Writ Court has only directed the petitioner to avail an alterative remedy available to the petitioner under the provisions of the Customs Act. The fact that there is a requirement of pre deposit in the Appeal provisions, cannot be a ground to entertain a Writ Petition.

¶22

3.The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that the appellant was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to project his case before the authority.

¶23

4.We have perused the order impugned in the Writ Petition. We find it to be a reasoned order and any insufficiency of reason cannot be a ground to entertain the Writ petition under Article 226. The Writ Court has only refused to entertain the Writ Petition on the ground that an alternative remedy exists. We do not see any reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Writ Court and the Writ Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________

¶25

_____________ Page 2 of 4_

¶26

W.A.(MD).No.1841 of 2024

¶27

5.It is open to the appellant to apply to the authorities for de-freezing

¶28

the bank account in order to enable him to make a pre deposit and file an appeal. If such request is made, the authorities will consider the same positively. The petitioner is also given a month time from the date of receipt of copy of the order to file an Appeal. If the Appeal is filed within a months time from the date of receipt of copy of the order, the authorities will entertain it de hors limitation. No Costs.

¶29

[R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.] 16.10.2024

¶30

NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet: Yes Mrn

¶31

¶32

1.The Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, New Harbour Estate, Tuticorin -628 004.

¶33

2.The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Customs (SIIB), Custom House, New Harbour Estate, Tuticorin – 628 004.

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 3 of 4_

¶35

W.A.(MD).No.1841 of 2024

¶36

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

¶37

Mrn

¶38

W.A.(MD).No.1841 of 2024

¶39

16.10.2024

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 4 of 4_

M/s.Gold Processors v. The Commissioner of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Gold Processors v. The Commissioner of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Managing Director Vs K.Kannadhasan (Staff No.97DR3018)

The Chief Educational Officer Vs v Janet Swerna Rubi

Hari Anand Vs The Joint Commissioner

Jeyachandara Vs The District Collector

The Director Of School Education Vs S. Christabel Vimala

The Chief Educational Officer Vs a.X.Mino