IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2009 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 6713 of 2009(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.SADIQ BROTHERS MARINE WORKS, GALAXY BUILDINGS, 50/395 A, MANIMALA ROAD JUNCTION, EDAPPALLY P.O., COCHIN-682 024, REP. BY P.A.SADIQ, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, AGED 46 YEARS. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, COCHIN-682 009. 2. CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, SHASTRI BHAVAN ANNEXE, IST FLOOR, 26, HADDOWS ROAD, CHENNAI-600 006. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI. MR.JOHN VARGHESE, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.6713 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The prayers in this writ petition are for quashing Exts.P7, P9, P10 & P11 and to direct the respondents to refund the duty, fine and penalty imposed on the petitioner in relation to the 2 fishing trawlers purchased by the petitioner from the Matsyafed. 2. The duty and penalty have been imposed on the petitioner on the basis that customs duty is chargeable when the vessel is taken up for breaking, in pursuance to Notification Nos.262/58 and 133/87 issued under the Customs Act, 1962. The claim of the petitioner that duty is not payable was turned down in Ext.P7 order of declaration, which was confirmed in Ext.P10 appellate order and Ext.P11 order passed by the Tribunal. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed challenging the aforesaid orders. 3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents rightly points out that the case of the petitioner that in view of notification No.47/96, rescinding notification No.133/87 WP(C) No.6713/2009 -2- has been dealt with by the Tribunal in Ext.P11 and has been rejected. It is also rightly pointed out that the petitioner has an alternate remedy of appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act to the Division Bench of the High Court. 4. As contended by the learned standing counsel for the respondents, Section 130 of the Customs Act provides for an appellate remedy for the petitioner, if they are aggrieved by Ext.P11. In view of the same, I dismiss the writ petition leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy and leaving open all the contentions raised. The writ petition is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg