IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.166 of 2011 SANJAY KUMAR SON OF LATE GOPAL MAHTO, RESIDENT OF DADAR MANDI, DISTRICT- PATNA-7 Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH A.K. CHATURVEDI, COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, PATNA (BIHAR) 2. A.K. CHATURVEDI, COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, PATNA ----------- 2 25.04.2011 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner challenges the order dated 31st December, 2010 as contained in Annexure-1, whereby an order has been passed imposing the penalty in terms of the provisions of section 114 of the Customs Act. It is submitted to behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has no relation with the smuggled goods, and as such, petitioner can not be subjected to any penalty under the aforesaid provisions of the Customs Act and as such it was not justified on the part of the authority to pass any order against the petitioner. It is further submitted that although there is statutory appeal and other remedies under the provisions of the Customs Act, however, in case of filing appeal petitioner is required to make the necessary payment as a pre-condition, and as such, filing of the appeal is onerous and not an effective remedy. Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Customs Department submits that the Act itself provides a complete procedure for the redressal of the grievances by filing an appeal followed by the further remedy before the Tribunal constituted under the Act and thereafter if need be a reference to this Court. Learned counsel further submits that in terms of the provisions of section 129(E) of the Customs Act the concerned authority has got the power to dispense with the pre-condition of depositing the requisite amount while appealing against the order, and as such, petitioner ought to have taken the recourse under the provisions of the Customs Act and should not have approached this Court directly under its writ jurisdiction. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, I find that the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondents have substance since the Customs Act provides an effective remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority as also before the Tribunal and also if needed a reference to this Court. Moreover, it has rightly been pointed out by the counsel for the State that section 129(E) of the Customs Act vests power with the appellate authority to dispense with the pre-condition of depositing the requisite amount considering the facts of each case. In view of the above, I do not find it a fit case to interfere into the matter and as such the writ application accordingly stands dismissed. It is however made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)