Statutory Appeals as the Primary Remedy in Customs Disputes: Madras High Court’s Approach
Background of the Dispute
The matter in Abdul Janeez Riasur Rahman Vs Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) reached the Madras High Court as a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The assessee approached the High Court challenging an Order-in-Appeal No. 01/2026-TRY(CUS)-APP dated 27.01.2026 passed by the first respondent, primarily on two counts:
Challenge to monetary impositions
The assessee questioned the legality of:- Redemption fine of
Rs.2,50,000/-, and - Penalty of
Rs.1,00,000/-
- Redemption fine of
Request for release of seized goods
A consequential direction was sought for release of:- Gold chains weighing 149 grams,
- A Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra mobile phone, and
- A Dell laptop,
on payment of applicable customs duty, within a time limit to be fixed by the Court.
The relief was framed as a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned appellate order to the extent of the fine and penalty, and to secure release of the seized items.
Course of Proceedings Before the Authorities
Order-in-Original and First Appeal
- An Order-in-Original was first passed by the adjudicating authority imposing penalty on the assessee.
- Aggrieved by this, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).
- That appeal culminated in the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 27.01.2026, which upheld the imposition of redemption fine and penalty, leading the assessee to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
Assessee’s Core Contentions Before the High Court
Reliance on Paragraph 10.3 of the Impugned Order
Counsel for the assessee drew specific attention to paragraph 10.3 of the Order-in-Appeal. According to the assessee, the appellate authority itself recorded a finding indicating that the assessee was eligible to carry the goods in question.
On that basis, it was argued that:
- Once the authority accepts that the assessee was eligible to carry the gold chains, mobile phone and laptop,
- The simultaneous imposition of a redemption fine of Rs.2,50,000/- and penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- becomes untenable and arbitrary.
The assessee therefore sought:
- Quashing of the impugned order only to the extent it upheld the fine and penalty; and
- A direction for release of the seized articles upon payment of lawful customs duty, if any, due.
Stand of the Customs Department
Objection on the Ground of Alternate Remedy
On behalf of the Customs Department, the learned Senior Standing Counsel opposed entertaining the writ petition by emphasising the existence of a specific statutory appellate remedy.