D.R. ENTERPRISES LTD. versus ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND ORS.

Citation: [2015] 8 S.C.R. 1131 · Decided: 12-08-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

(2015] 8 S.C.R. 1131 
D.R. ENTERPRISES LTD. 
v. 
ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4417 OF 2003) 
AUGUST 12, 2015 
[A.K. SIKRI AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Customs Act, 1962 - Customs duty-At concessional 
rate -
Under Open General Allowance with the aid of c 
Notification No.114180-CUS, dated 19.6.1980- On import 
of Web Printing Machine -
Writ petition praying for 
declaration that the import of the machine was permissible 
at concessional customs duty- Import at concessional rate 
denied by the High Court on the ground that the Notification D 
was not applicable as one of the conditions that the machine 
is having output capacity of 30,000 or more copies per hour, 
is not fulfilled - On appeal, held: The burden to prove the 
output capacity of the machine as per the requirement under 
the Notification, is on the assessee and the assessee in E 
having failed in proving the same, denial of permission to 
import the machine at concessional rate of customs duty was 
justified- Notification No.114180-CUS, dated 19.6.1980. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
F 
Art. 226 - Writ jurisdiction - Scope of - The powers 
u/Art. 226 are very wide -Availability of alternate remedy may 
not preclude the High Court from exercising the writ 
jurisdiction - The denial to exercise the writ jurisdiction, in G 
view of availability of alternate statutory remedy, is only a 
self imposed restriction. 
Art.226 - Writ Petition - Praying for declaration that 
1131 
H 
1132 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 8 S.C.R. 
A the imported machine was covered by Open General 
Allowance and was entitled to concessional rate of customs 
duty under Notification No.114180-CUS -
The importer 
inviting the High Court to decide the issue on merit as to 
whether the machine fulfilled the criteria to be included under 
B the Notification - High Court deciding the issue against the 
importer- On appeal, plea of the importer that the High Court 
was not competent to decide the issue on merit when the 
Customs Act provides for complete adjudication machinery 
C to adjudicate the issue - Held: The importer itself having 
invited the High Court to decide the case on merit and further 
finding that case has gone against it, cannot take a contrary 
plea - The High Court was competent to decide the issue in 
exercise of its writ jurisdiction - Customs Act, 1962- s.28-
D Jurisdiction - Writ Jurisdiction - Notification No. 114180-
CUS, dated 19. 6. 1980. 
Limitation - Import of Web Printing Machine in the 
year 1987 - Adjudication of the issue as to whether the 
machine was covered by Notification No.114180 after about 
E 15 years - Whether time-barred - Held: The issue was 
pending adjudication before High Court (writ court) -
Proceeding u/s.28 of Customs Act were not initiated - The 
petitioner, itself impressed upon the High Court to decide 
F the matter on merit- In view of the above facts, question of 
limitation does not arise - Customs Act, 1962- s.28. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The powers of the High Court under 
G Article 226 of the Constitution, while issuing appropriate 
writs, are very wide. Even if there is an alternate remedy, 
that may not preclude the High Court from exercising 
the jurisdiction in a particular case. In the face of alternate 
statutory remedies, when the High Court declines to 
H exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the 
D.R. ENTERPRISES LTD. v. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR 
1133 
OF CUSTOMS 
Constitution, it is a self imposed restriction only. [Para A 
21] (1145-E-F] 
1.2 The High Court, while deciding the writ petition 
on merit, was not oblivious of Section 28 of.~he Act and 
that determination of such an issue is tio be more B 
appropriately in the hands of Adjudicating Authority. It 
also appears that High Court might have disposed of 
the writ petition with liberty to the Adjudicating Authority 
to initiate proceedings under Section 28 of the Act Such 
an action was not taken at the instance of the appellant C 
which contended otherwise. [Para 19] [1144-D] 
1.3 After inviting the High Court to decide the 
matter on merits and finding that the decision has gone 
against the appellant, contrary argument before this· D 
Court, is nothing but a desperate attempt to chicken out 
of the situation which is appellant's own creation. 
Therefore, the plea of the appellant that High Court was 
· not competent to decide the issue in exercise of its writ 
jurisdiction is rejected. [Para 20] [1145-C, DJ 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.