Page 174 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

564 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

of the customs, after scrutiny and ascertainment of accuracy of such declarations,
passes an order for home consumption under Section 47 of the said Act. It com-
pletes the import of such goods brought into India. Until all the obligations are
discharged, the imported goods remain imported goods as per the definition in
the Customs Act, 1962. Since the vessel remains an imported goods until an or-
der for home consumption is passed, and as the obligation under the law is not
discharged, and as the self-assessed bill of entry is filed in the year 2018, the peti-
tioner was accorded an opportunity as per principles of natural justice by issuing
a notice. The petitioner is free to put forth all the contentions before the proper
officer. If the ends of justice were not met, there is an inbuilt redressal mecha-
nism in the Customs Act, 1962. The 1st respondent is justified in issuing the
communication, dated 19-9-2018. The contention of the petitioner that they have
no alternative remedy except approaching this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution for redressal of the grievance is incorrect and is a misrepresentation
of facts. In the event the petitioner is aggrieved of an order that may be passed
under Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962, the statutory remedy is available to
approach the Commissioner (Appeals). Even before passing an order for home
consumption by a proper officer and without getting the efficacious alternative
remedy exhausted, the petitioner preferred the writ petition merely on presump-
tive grounds. The said Act is having a self-contained procedure and it gives full
liberty to the petitioner to put forth their case before adjudication. The writ peti-
tion is not maintainable as there is no illegality, irrationality or procedural im-
propriety in the actions of the respondents. There are no exceptional circum-
stances warranting invocation of the provision for judicial review. Article 226 is
not meant to short circuit or circumvent statutory procedures. Hence, the writ
petition may be dismissed by vacating the interim order, dated 19-12-2018.
6. The case of the 4th respondent - Union of India is also more or less
akin to the case pleaded by the Respondents 1 & 2, which is narrated supra.
7. The petitioner filed a rejoinder affidavit reiterating the pleaded con-
tentions and inter alia stating that there is no duty whatsoever (including inte-
grated tax) leviable as the vessel was imported admittedly on 28-5-2012, and as
penalties are deposited pursuant to the penalty order for violations of Sections 30
& 46 of the Customs Act, 1962, and that the bill of entry is only filed for regulari-
sation and the same was withdrawn and the petitioner cannot be penalised for
not filing the bill of entry in May, 2012, and that since the action is being ques-
tioned on want of authority and jurisdiction the writ petition is maintainable. It is
inter alia contended that customs duty is charged as per the law in place when
the goods are imported into India and not the law prevalent on the date of belat-
ed filing of the bill of entry due to non-filing of the bill of entry on the date the
vessel was imported into India.
8. We have given earnest consideration to the facts and submissions.
9. The first question is as to whether the levy of the penalty under
order, dated 6-7-2018, and the deposit of the same by the petitioner absolved the
petitioner from discharging of all its liabilities in respect of the import of the ves-
sel, on 28-5-2012, into Indian waters; and, if so, whether the petitioner is not re-
quired to file the manual bill of entry at any time later and is, therefore, entitled
to withdraw the manual bill of entry having filed, on 10-7-2018.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  174