$~158 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9739/2026, CM APPL. 45471/2026, CM APPL. 45472/2026, CM APPL. 45473/2026 SUNNY JAIN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sandeep Chilana, Mr. Devansh Garg, Mr. Priyojeet Chatterjee, Advocates versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) , ICD, TUGHLAKABAD, DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Anushree Narain, Mr. Apurv Yadav and Mr Naman Choula, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN O R D E R % 20.07.2026 1. The present Petition has been filed seeking issuance of an appropriate writ for setting aside and quashing the Order dated 06.04.2026, passed by Respondent No.1, which was subsequently corrected vide Corrigendum Order dated 05.05.2026, thereby confirming the demand of customs duty with interest as well as imposing penalty thereof. 2. Admittedly, the Petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 129(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 (to be read as Act of 1962) against the Impugned Orders dated 06.04.2026 and 05.05.2026. 3. Learned counsel representing the Petitioner submits that the penalty imposed by the Respondent No.1 is four times the amount of the customs duty payable. He further submits that Show Cause Notice This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 12:39:37 issued on 07.04.2025 and the Impugned Orders were issued invoking two different provisions. While the former proposed to levy penalty under Section 112(a)(ii) of the Act of 1962, the latter travelled beyond and confirmed the imposition of penalty under Sections 112(a)(ii) and 112(b)(ii) of the Act of 1962. 4. This Court has considered the submissions. Once the availability of an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal is not in dispute, and the Petitioner is at liberty to raise all the aforesaid contentions before the Appellate Authority, this Court finds no reason to exercise its writ jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5. In view of the aforesaid, the Petitioner is relegated to the remedy of statutory appeal. Needless to observe that, if so advised, the Petitioner may file an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking exclusion of the time spent before this Court, in pursuing the present Petition, while computing the period of limitation for the purpose of filing the statutory appeal. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the present Petition is disposed of. ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. SHAIL JAIN, J. JULY 20, 2026/da/hr This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 12:39:37