The Madras High Court has refused to interfere with an order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) declining to condone a 144-day delay in filing a statutory customs appeal, holding that a litigant who consciously bypasses the prescribed appellate mechanism cannot later seek indulgence through writ jurisdiction without demonstrating sufficient cause for the delay.
The Bench of Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice N. Mala observed that the case did not fall within any of the well-recognised exceptions permitting the High Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 despite the availability of an effective statutory remedy.
The dispute arose from the import of products described by the importer as “Herbal Classic Menthol” charcoal-filter sticks made from tea leaves, claimed to be tobacco-free and nicotine-free. The importer classified the goods under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 30049011 falling under Chapter 30 and declared assessable values of approximately ₹8.99 lakh and ₹17.99 lakh in two Bills of Entry filed in May 2023.
Buy Now: Supreme court Judgements E-Compilation – JUNE 2026
Although laboratory testing reportedly confirmed that the products did not contain tobacco or nicotine, the Customs authorities classified them under CTH 24029090 (Chapter 24) instead of Chapter 30. The adjudicating authority consequently passed an Order-in-Original demanding duty under the revised classification and imposed a penalty of ₹15,000 for alleged misdeclaration.
The importer challenged the order before the Commissioner (Appeals), who partly allowed the appeal by deleting the penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, but upheld the classification of the imported goods under Chapter 24.
Instead of immediately approaching the CESTAT, the importer first filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court seeking release of the imported goods from the customs bonded warehouse, contending that the classification adopted by Customs was erroneous.
During those proceedings, the High Court directed the petitioner to seek provisional release of the goods upon furnishing a bank guarantee and bond, while also directing the Customs authorities to adjudicate the dispute relating to exemption of duty expeditiously. Subsequently, acting on legal advice that the pending writ petition would not prevent filing a statutory appeal, the importer approached the CESTAT with a delay of 144 days.
The Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay after holding that the reasons advanced by the importer constituted merely an explanation and not a legally sufficient cause.
The Tribunal observed that acceptable grounds for condoning delay generally require the cause to be beyond the litigant’s control; absence of negligence; proof of due diligence; and no prolonged inaction or sleeping over legal rights.
Finding that these requirements were not satisfied, the Tribunal dismissed the delay condonation application.
Before the High Court, the importer argued that the delay occurred because it had initially pursued a writ remedy for release of goods that were allegedly perishable. It submitted that the classification dispute remained alive and that the statutory appeal was eventually filed on legal advice after proceedings in the earlier writ petition.
According to the petitioner, these circumstances constituted a bona fide explanation warranting condonation so that the classification issue could be decided on merits.
The Customs Department opposed the petition on two principal grounds.
First, it argued that the writ petition itself was not maintainable because Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides an effective statutory appellate remedy against orders of the Tribunal.
Secondly, it contended that even on merits, the importer had failed to explain why it waited several months after the High Court’s interim order before filing the appeal before the Tribunal. According to the Department, merely pursuing a different writ proceeding relating to release of goods did not justify exclusion of limitation or establish bona fide prosecution before a wrong forum under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
The Bench examined earlier decisions of the Madras High Court as well as the Supreme Court, including Rajkumar Shivhare v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, reiterating that writ jurisdiction ordinarily cannot be invoked where an effective statutory remedy exists.
The Court observed that exceptions permitting interference under Article 226 are limited to situations involving Complete lack of jurisdiction; Violation of principles of natural justice; Challenge to the constitutional validity of a statutory provision; or Exercise of powers under an ultra vires provision.
None of these exceptional circumstances, the Court held, were present in the instant case.
The Bench further held that condonation of delay is essentially a question of fact requiring a convincing explanation supported by sufficient cause.
It observed that the petitioner had consciously chosen to pursue a writ petition challenging the classification instead of filing the statutory appeal within the prescribed period. When the appeal was eventually filed after substantial delay, the explanation offered did not satisfactorily justify the prolonged inaction.
The Court also clarified that while the classification dispute may still remain pending in the earlier writ proceedings, that circumstance could not automatically justify condonation of delay in the statutory appeal.
Holding that neither the maintainability requirements for invoking writ jurisdiction nor the legal standards for condoning delay had been satisfied, the Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the CESTAT’s refusal to condone the 144-day delay.
Accordingly, the writ petition and the connected miscellaneous petition were dismissed without any order as to costs.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
