WP/29319/2025 of M/s. A One Electrical Laminations Vs The Unions of India on 21 January 2026

1. The Unions of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance; North Block, New Delhi -110 001

2. The Additional Commissioner, (Group 4 and 4A), Office of the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-ll) lmport), Custom House, No. 60; Rajaji Salai, Chennai

- 1 10 001.

3. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Custodian/Manager/Official in Charge, M/s. Apollo World Connect Limited CFS., S_q*qy No.1/3B3, E,lti"yl Road, KattupaliiVillage, PonneriTaluk, Thiruvallur District, chennai - 601 204 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to - f . issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned Order-in-Original No.113509 dated- 10.06.2025, passed by the Respondent Authority, whereby the goods imported under Bill of Entry No. 9431796, dated 27.12.2023 were ordered for confiscation and redemption fine/penalties were imposed under Sections 112, 114AA, and 125 of the Custorns Act, 't962

2. Direct the Respondents to release the imported goods covered under Bill of Entry No.9431796. dated 27.12.2023, permit clearance for home consumption since the Petitioner has already paid redemption fine and penalties imposed under the impugned OIO

3. Direct the Respondents to refund the redemption fine of Rs.1,50,000/- paid under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, penalty of Rs.1,50,000 - paid under Section 112, and penalty of 3,00,000/- paid under Section 114AA, aggregating to about Rs.6,00,000/- together with statutory interest within such time as this Honorable Court may deem fit

4. ln the alternative, direct the Respondents to adjust the said amount of 6,00,000/- towards any lawful customs duty liability of the Petitioner, present or future, under the Customs Act, 1962, instead of refund

5. Declare that the impugned OIO is illegal, arbitrary, null and void, being passed in contravention of law, principles of natural justice, and without jurisdiction. lA NO: 1 OF 202s the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Suspend the operation, implementation, and effect of the impugned Order-in- Original No.113509 dated-10.06.2025, passed by the Respondent Authority by Restrain the Respondents, their officers, servants, and agents from taking any coercive steps pursuant to the said impugned OlO. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Direct the Re3pondents to forthwith release the goods, imported under Bill of Entiy No. 9431796, dated 27.12.2023 and permit clearance for home consumption, since the Petitioner has already paid redemption fine and penalties imposed under the impugned OlO. lA NO: 3 OF 2025

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Direct the Respondents to secure the amount of 26,00,000/- (redemption fine and penalties already paid by the Petitioner) by keeping the same in a separate account, subject to final orders of this Hon'ble Court. .ln the alternative, direct the * * $! l ,i $ !II ? II IIt I I t

Respondents to adjust the said amount of 6,00,000/- towards any lawful customs duty liability of the Petitioner, present or future, under the Customs Act, 1962, instead of refund. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.SABABU FOR SRI VENKAT REDDY KODUMURY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: Ms. PRAVALLIKA FOR SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES, SENIOR SC FOR CBIC The Court made the following: ORDER

:: I I t i i I It, I ilI HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION No.2931 9 of2025 Date:21 .2026 Between: IWs.A One Electircal Laminations, Towlichowki, Hyderabad. Petitioner And Union of India, rep.by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi and others Respondents ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr.K.Saibabu, learned counsel appearing for Mr.Venkat Reddy Kodumury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Pravallika, learned counsel representing Mr.Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused the record.

2. The instant is the petition which has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, on perusal of the impugned order, it is reflected that the impugned order is one which is appealable before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short "the Act"). We do not find any strong case made out by the petitioner for not having availed the remedy of appeal 1O in tlrn resortti: r" the remedy available under the writ jurisdiction. \ \

lt is now well settled proposition of law that once when there is statutory alternative remedy available, unless an exceptional case is made out for invoking the writ jurisdiction, the writ petition as a matter of routine against the appealable order should not be entertained.

3. In view of the same, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, right of the petitioner to resort to remedy of appeal under Section 128(l) of the Act stands reserved and so far as the contention of the petitioner of having paid the entire duty payable is also fact which needs to be brought to the notice of appellate authority in the course of filing the appeal and in the course of seeking waiver of his pre-deposit required in the course of filing of appeal, the petitioner is at liberty to resort to the same. [n addition, the aspect of limitation if at all arises, the petitioner may take an appropriate remedy as is available under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 so far as the period spent before the High Court in the course of presenting the present writ petition is concerned.

4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. u Tp\E b,ty lt

t. Il,: Secretary, Unions of lndia, Ministry of Finan 110 001.

2. The Additional Commissioner. (Grouo 4 and 4A). of.C. -uqtgms, Chennai-lI) lmport), Custom Houid,'

- 110 001. .JAWAHAR TANT New Delhi- the Commissioner No RajajiSalai, Chennai I To

3. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Custodian/Manager/Official in 9!1g:rl1{:rApotto wortd connect r_imqi:o CFs.: bffi;t rfu.i/Ce3, puiicut . Eoacl, Kattuplrfli Yjtt?gp,_p_q1e_{ Tqt_u!, Thiruvailtir Distrj6t, chennai'- ao,l-ioq

4. One CC to SRI VENKAT REDDY KODUITURV;Aa,ocate,rop-Uci

5. ONE CC tO SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUiVSOLi'IiOH CEI.r-dNNI Or tNDtA IOPUCI 6' one cc to sRl DoMrNrc FERNANDES, sc FoR cBrc topucJ

7. Two CD Copies

{ HIGH COURT DATED t2110112026 q$:.f.- THE S

ORDER

WP.No.29319 of 2025 o t O 0 r FIB 202[ * * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I gA