Judgment :- The Order of the Court is as follows :- Invoking Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 1st respondent in O.P. No. 154/92, dated 23-10-1992 and to quash the same as without jurisdiction and unconstitutional in so far as this petitioner is concerned. 2.In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed an affidavit wherein he has narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petition and requested this court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, though no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 argued the matter and pleaded that the writ petition has to be dismissed for want of merits. 3.Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have perused the contents of the affidavit together with all other relevant material documents available on record in the form of typed set of papers. I have also taken into consideration the various points raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties during the course of their arguments. 4.In the above facts and the circumstances of the case, the only point that arises for consideration is as to whether there are any valid grounds to allow this writ petition or not. 5.The brief facts of the case of the petitioner as seen from the affidavit are as follows : M/s. M.R. Timber Corporation, the 2nd respondent herein had imported 83 pieces of Yellow selangam batu Timber logs from Malaysia per vessel mv.BVA, THIP on 4-7-1988. Import Manifest with cargo declaration as per Sec. 30 of the Customs Act, was filed by the Steamer Agent M/s. Diamond Shipping Corporation Tuticorin and the same was numbered as I.M. 222/4-7-1988. The 4th respondent herein, the Clearing and Forwarding Agent of the Importer, filed a Bill of Entry for the clearance of the above Cargo. The 4th respondent also filed the documents such as Bill of Lading, Invoice, Declaration, Freight Bills etc. The Bill of Entry was numbered as B. E. 178/13-8-1988. The 4th respondent herein, the Clearing and Forwarding Agent of the Importer, filed a Bill of Entry for the clearance of the above Cargo. The 4th respondent also filed the documents such as Bill of Lading, Invoice, Declaration, Freight Bills etc. The Bill of Entry was numbered as B. E. 178/13-8-1988. As per the Bill of Lading, 83 pieces of Malaysian Yellow Selangam Batu logs were loaded from the Malaysian Port intended for the 2nd respondent. Based on the documents and declaration filed by the Importer, the 2nd respondent herein and the Agent, the 4th respondent on behalf of the 2nd respondent, the duty on the goods was worked out to Rs. 1, 49, 744/-. The goods were examined and percentage check was conducted by the Customs Authorities and the assessment of Customs Duty was done in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act. The duty was paid on 23-8-1988 and the goods were cleared for home Consumption. A survey was conducted by one M/s. Capt. Krishnan & Co., on 17-8-1988. The Customs authorities were neither informed nor present during the survey. The duty was paid on 23-8-1988 and the goods were cleared. Even at the time of payment of duty or at the time of clearance, neither the importer nor the Agent informed the Customs Department about the Survey or any loss of the imported goods. It seems that 12 of the logs were not available out of the 83 logs imported. From the facts stated in the order passed by the 1st respondent, it is seen that the 2nd respondent addressed the Tuticorin Port Trust, Traffic Manager for Certification of the shortage and to compensate for the loss. In the letter dated 29-4-1989, the 2nd respondent claimed that the cargo is missing from the Custody of the Port Trust and missing, due to short timber or before the clearance for which the Traffic Manager replied that the claim had been rejected and further advised them to contact their steamer agents. On 10-4-1989, the 2nd respondent addressed a letter to the petitioner, informing the loss of 12 number of timber logs and prayed for refund of duty. On 10-4-1989, the 2nd respondent addressed a letter to the petitioner, informing the loss of 12 number of timber logs and prayed for refund of duty. Since the letter was not in the proper form to be treated as Refund Claim and the claim was received after the period of 6 months prescribed under the Customs for claiming refund from the date of payment of duty, the petitioner did not treat the letter as refund claim. The 2nd respondent made a claim before the 3rd respondent for a sum of Rs. 2, 14, 663.55 and the insurance company sanctioned a sum of Rs. 1, 48, 756/- vide their letter dated 27-7-1989 stating the party failed to lodge a claim with the Port Trust authorities within the stipulated time, i.e., within 7 days from the last date of clearance (28-11-1988) and since the Port Trust authorities have rejected the claim, the party has not protected the recovery right of the Insurance Company and hence the party is eligible for only 75% of the claim, and informed the party to approach the Customs Department for refund of duty and if the party is not successful in getting refund then the insurance company will consider the matter. The party filed O.P. No. 154/92 before the 1st respondent claiming a sum of Rs. 49, 919/- being the balance of 25% from Insurance Company and claimed a sum of Rs. 29, 833/- from the petitioner with interest. The petitioner herein filed reply to the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent before the Consumer Court, the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent without considering the vital question of jurisdiction and the liability of Customs Department, passed the impugned order. Aggrieved against the order, the petitioner has filed the present wirt petition.6.The impugned order is challenged by the petitioner department on the grounds that the 1st respondent failed to note that there is no consumer relationship between the party and the customs department. There is no service. The levy of Customs Duty is as per Customs Act. It is a statutory levy. There is no service. Therefore, the Consumer Forum, the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to try the case and pass an order. The 1st respondent failed to consider the averments in the reply filed by this petitioner. There is no service. The levy of Customs Duty is as per Customs Act. It is a statutory levy. There is no service. Therefore, the Consumer Forum, the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to try the case and pass an order. The 1st respondent failed to consider the averments in the reply filed by this petitioner. Under Customs Act, duty is assessed as per the declaration, Bill of Entry and other connected documents filed by the party and after payment of duty, the goods have to be cleared. If there is any loss or destruction, the party has to inform the Customs Department about the loss etc. In the instant case, the alleged survey was conducted in the absence of the Customs Department Officials and without their knowledge. The Customs Department was not aware of the loss till the party sent a letter claiming refund. In such circumstances, even a valid refund claim made in specific form, within time is not allowed. Further according to them, Sec. 27 of Customs Act provides for claiming refund. The section specifically lays down certain conditions to be satisfied for grant, claim of refund. The one of the main conditions is claiming the refund within 6 months from the date of payment of duty. According to them if a claim for refund is made not in the prescribed form and after the limitation period prescribed under the section, the claim has to be rejected because the authorities are bound by the provisions of the Act and they cannot travel beyond the scope of the section. They contend that a mere letter seeking refund claim without details cannot construed as a refund claim, that the act done by the Customs Department is not service. There is no relationship of Consumer or Customer much less there is no contractual obligation of fulfilment of any service and that the levy, assessment of Customs duty being legislative in character, and the sovereign function, statutory liability and discharge of statutory duty, it is reiterated that there is no service involved and as such the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to try such complaint and pass orders as against this petitioner. Further according to them, by directing refund, the 1st respondent virtually overlooked the provisions of limitation etc., prescribed under the Customs Act. Such an exercise of power is without jurisdiction and illegal. Further according to them, by directing refund, the 1st respondent virtually overlooked the provisions of limitation etc., prescribed under the Customs Act. Such an exercise of power is without jurisdiction and illegal. It is also their case that the 1st respondent is neither a constitutional court to have powers under the constitution nor a statutory body constituted under the Customs Act, who alone can decide an issue arising under the Customs Act. They also contend that the reading of the pleadings of the complainant before the forum the 1st respondent clearly establishes that the allegation of deficiency of service, claim was mainly on the Insurance Company and only as an alternative prayed for direction against the Customs Department, and that therefore there is no claim against the Customs Department straightaway, and this is because that the party knows fully well that there is no consumer relationship between him and the Customs Department and he cannot allege any deficiency of service and the 1st respondent is not the proper form for getting refund.7.Having seen the entire material available on record and from the facts and circumstances of the case and also from the claims and counter claims made by the rival parties, the only question that has to be decided herein is, as to whether the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in O.P. No. 154/92 dated 23-10-1992 in so far as the petitioner concerned is maintainable or not. The impugned order is challenged by the petitioner herein on a number of grounds. According to them there is no consumer relationship between the party and the Department and there is no service involved herein and the levy of customs duty is as per Customs Act. Further if a claim for refund is made not in the specified form and after the limitation period prescribed under the section, the claim has to be rejected because, the authorities are bound by the provisions of the Act and they cannot travel beyond the scope of the section. Coming to the impugned order, it is a speaking order and it has been hotly contested by the parties. After a detailed enquiry the forum has passed the impugned order. Witnesses were examined, Documents have been marked. The form has gone into every aspect of the matter and passed the impugned order. Coming to the impugned order, it is a speaking order and it has been hotly contested by the parties. After a detailed enquiry the forum has passed the impugned order. Witnesses were examined, Documents have been marked. The form has gone into every aspect of the matter and passed the impugned order. Though the petitioner herein questioned the jurisdiction of the forum, they submitted to its jurisdiction and participated in the process of enquiry let in evidence and marked documents and ultimately received an order against their interest. Therefore, in such circumstances, now they cannot question the jurisdiction of the forum and its competency to maintain this matter. When once they submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the said forum, they have to pursue the matter only in that line. They have lost only before the District Forum. They have appellate remedy before the State Forum and other national level forums. They have not exhausted those remedies and straightaway rushed to this court. It is significant to note that under Sec. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, there is appeal provision before the State Consumer Redressal Commission. That remedy has not admittedly been exhausted by the pertitioner. That being so, they cannot maintain the present writ petition. In this view of the matter, the writ petition has to be dismissed.8.In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently WMP. No. 29603/92 also is dismissed.