1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NOS. 83, 84, 85, 86 AND 87 OF 2010 WRIT PETITION NO. 83 OF 2010 Metro Industries through Mr. Nandkumar C. Chile. ... Petitioner versus The Union of India through the Commissioner of Customs and another. ... Respondents WRIT PETITION NO. 84 OF 2010 Max Overseas through Mr. Nandkumar Chandrakant Chile. ... Petitioner versus Union of India through the Commissioner of Customs and another. ... Respondents WRIT PETITION NO. 85 OF 2010 Manoj Ramesh Golatkar ... Petitioner versus Union of India through the Commissioner of Customs and another. ... Respondents Shri Sujay Kantawala with Shri Nigel Da Costa Frias, Advocates for the Petitioners. Shri C. A. Ferreira, Assistant Solicitor General for the Respondents. 2 WRIT PETITION NO. 86 OF 2010 Prashant Krishna Vichare ... Petitioner versus Union of India, New Delhi through Standing Counsel and another. ... Respondents WRIT PETITION NO. 87 OF 2010 Rajendra Ramdas Mahajan through P.O.A. Mr. S. N. Palekar. ... Petitioner versus Union of India, New Delhi through Standing Counsel and another. ... Respondents Shri A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri C. A. Ferreira, Assistant Solicitor General for the Respondents. Coram : NARESH H. PATIL & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. Date : 4TH FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C.:- Heard. 2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that in some of the cases the bills have been assessed and orders have been passed. 3 The goods/consignment is lying at the port since August, 2009. It is further submitted that the Petitioners have imported the goods and that the Petitioners are left with no alternative remedies available to them. According to the learned Counsel, the Petitioners are entitled to maintain the Petition. In support of the submissions made, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the following Judgments of the Apex Court as well as of the Bombay High Court in the cases of Shahnaz Ayurvedics v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida(2004(173) E.L.T. 337(All.), TVL Pizzeria Fast Foods Rest.(MAD.) P. Ltd. v. C.C.T. Ezhilagam, Chennai(2005(192) E.L.T. 52(Mad.), Kellogg India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India(2006(193) E.L.T. 385(Bom.) and Silicon Graphics System(India) Private Limited v. Union of India(2006(204) E.L.T. 247(Bom.). Learned Counsel further submits that the Petitioners are ready and willing to deposit an amount of duty and furnish guarantee to the extent of 25% to the value of the goods. Our attention is invited to an Order passed by the Division Bench of this Court(Coram: Naresh H. Patil & N. A. Britto, JJ.) dated 13-1-2010 in Civil Application No.11 of 2010 in Custom Appeal No. 1 of 2010(The Commisioner of Customs versus M/s Max Overseas). 3. Learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for the Respondents, has submitted that the Petitioners have alternate statutory remedy which they ought to have availed of. In some of the matters the goods are assessed and orders are passed in November. The Petitioners chose to 4 approach this Court at a belated stage for reasons best known to them. In some cases the goods are yet to be assessed and they are required to state as to whether the goods imported are even permitted under the Customs Regulations. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel that under the Order passed by this Court in Custom Appeal No.1 of 2010, was not to be treated as precedent. 4. Our attention is invited to the Order dated 24-11-2009 passed by the Division Bench(Coram: Smt. V. K. Tahilramani & N. A. Britto, JJ.) in Writ Petition No.789 of 2009 wherein one of the Petitioner herein, Max Overseas, had directly filed a petition in this Court. 5. We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, and we have perused the Judgments cited(supra). The Order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.789 of 2009 dated 24-11-2009 reads as under:- “Heard. After hearing the matter for some time, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, upon instructions from the petitioner, seeks to withdraw this Writ Petition with leave to file appeal to the Appellate Tribunal in terms of Section 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the goods confiscated are having short shelf life, we direct the C.E.S.T.A.T. to dispose off the appeal within three weeks of filing of the same. Dismissed as withdrawn”. 5 6. In Civil Application No. 11 of 2010 in Custom Appeal No.1 of 2010, we clearly observed that interim order should not be treated as precedent. Admittedly, in all the matters, a statutory remedy is available. One of the Petitioners was a party in Custom Appeal No.1 of 2010. The same Petitioner M/s Max Overseas had filed earlier a Writ Petition which was dismissed as withdrawn due to availability of efficacious alternate remedy. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the Petitioners are required to avail of the statutory remedies. We do find that the Petitioners have made out a case by passing statutory remedy. 8. In view of the provisions contained in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Rule 43A as framed thereunder, Goa is not a designated port for importing cosmetics. 9. Considering all these aspects of the matter, we are of the view that the Petitioners may avail of statutory remedy. The Petitions are accordingly dismissed. NARESH H PATIL, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD