JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows:–– Mukherjee, J.: This Letters Patent appeal in directed against the judgment and order dated March 31, 1986 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the learned Single Judge allowed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (writ petition in short) and set aside an order dated July 26, 1984 passed by the Collector of Customs, Calcutta. 2. Saraf Paper Mills Limited, the writ petitioner No.1, imported from Singapore to Calcutta 131.640 metric tons or papers in 3,240 bundles. The declare descriptions of the goods, as per the bill of entry, was "paper waste unprinted white news". It has been contended that those paper were imported for the purpose of converting into paper pulp for manufacturing of papers in the paper mill of the petitioner No.1 company. It has been contended such goods were imported under item No. 72 of Appendix VI of the handbook of the exports and imports under which the said commodity could be brought without any licence. It was claimed that as those were paper waste, the petitioners were entitled to import the goods without payment of any custom duty as provided in Chapter 47, Serial No. 47.02 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 3. Serial No. 47.02 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was as follows :–– "Waste paper and paper board, scrap article or paper or paper board, fit only for use in paper making." 4. Exemption has been granted under a notification issued under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 from payment of custom duty in respect of waster papers or waste paper boards falling within the Chapter 47 of the first schedule to the Custom Tariff Act, 1975 when imported into India for manufacture of pulp for use in paper and paper board making. 5. The Custom Authority, however, on examination of the goods, found that the goods imported were quality papers, that is, newsprint in sheet form. Representative samples were drawn and were sent to the laboratory at custom house for test. The test conducted at the said laboratory revealed that the samples were in the form of white sheets of papers of uniform dimensions although at one of the edges along with lengthwise directions needle punch marks/perforations were there. Representative samples were drawn and were sent to the laboratory at custom house for test. The test conducted at the said laboratory revealed that the samples were in the form of white sheets of papers of uniform dimensions although at one of the edges along with lengthwise directions needle punch marks/perforations were there. It was contended by the Custom Authorities that as those imported papers were not paper waste, those could not be cleared duty free under the said notification and those could, also, not be cleared under open general licence as newsprint could be canalised only through State Trading Corporation. The imported goods were, therefore, chargeable under custom tariff heading No. 48. 6. Accordingly, on June 18, 1984 a show-cause-notice was issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 to the importer calling upon it to explain as to why appropriate duties of custom should not be charged on those goods and as to why those goods should not be confiscated under Section 111 (d) and as to why penalty should not be imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 7. Being aggrieved the writ petitioners, that is, the company and one of its shareholders, moved the present writ petition before this Court when a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated July 13, 1984, inter alia, directed the petitioners to give reply to show-cause-notice, without prejudice to their rights and contentions, within July 21, 1984. The Customs Authorities were directed to adjudicate on the question whether the goods imported are newsprint or not and whether they were covered by licence. 8. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions dated July 13, 1984, the writ petitioner submitted their show cause and the Collector of Customs granted them opportunities of personal hearing through their learned Advocates. The Collector of Customs by his order dated July 26, 1984 held that the custom tariff required that the goods should be fit only for use in papermaking. The goods imported were in sheets and were in fine and good condition. Those imported papers could be sold at a very high price fetching quite lot of a profit, which nobody would forego by pulping them for recycling. The goods imported were in sheets and were in fine and good condition. Those imported papers could be sold at a very high price fetching quite lot of a profit, which nobody would forego by pulping them for recycling. It is not necessary to prove that those imported items were newsprints, but, in order to obtain the relief, it was required to be proved by the importer that the goods imported were waste papers. It was found that the goods might not be useable as newsprints, but those could certainly be used for stationary as exercised books for writing, leaflets, posters etc. It was held that it has been proved beyond any doubt that the imported items were not waste papers. The newsprints could only be canalised for import through State Trading Corporation and due to canalisation by mis-declaration of the description of the goods, the goods were liable to be confiscated and the importer was, also, liable to personal penalty. Accordingly, an order of confiscation was passed, but opportunity was granted to the importer to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only in lieu of confiscation. A penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was, also, imposed on the petitioner No.2 as he was directly engaged in causing unauthorised importation. It was directed that the importer should pay duty of Rs. 5,64,489.41 paise (Rupees five lakh sixty four thousand four hundred eighty nine and paise forty one) only before the release of the goods. After the order of adjudication by the Collector of Customs was passed, a separate writ petition was not moved challenging the same nor any application was moved to amend the present writ petition. The writ petitioners, however, filed a supplementary affidavit annexing a copy of the order passed in the adjudication proceeding. 9. At the hearing before the learned Single Judge the Custom Authorities took a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that the order of the Collector of Customs was appealable before the appellate tribunal constituted under Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962. On merit, also, it was contended there has been no illegality in the order of Collector of Customs. 10. On merit, also, it was contended there has been no illegality in the order of Collector of Customs. 10. However, by the order impugned the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of penalty and confiscation and directed the Customs Authorities to treat those imported items as waste papers for manufacture of pulp for making papers and it was, further, held that they were entitled to import those items without any licence and that no custom duty could be levied on them. 11. The learned Judge held that :–– (i) the Collector of Customs failed to establish that the imported goods-in-question were not imported into India for manufacture of pulp for use in paper and paper board making and, in the absence of such determination, the Collector of Customs acted illegally and without jurisdiction in passing the order of confiscation; (ii) the determination made by the Collector of Customs was perverse as it has been admitted that the papers were perforated at the corner, which established that those goods were not newsprints, but waster papers; (iii) no reasonable man would import such loose bundles of damage papers perforated at the corner of each sheet for any other purpose than the purpose of manufacturing of pulp for use in paper and paper board making; (iv) simply because those items could be utilised for preparation of exercise books for writing, pamphlets, posters etc., the said papers did not ceased to be waste papers and could not be treated to be newsprints; (v) the order of the Collector of Customs was based on market enquiries conducted to ascertain the nature of the goods, but as those enquiries were held behind the back of the writ petitioners and without their knowledge there has been violation of principles of natural Justice and the quasi judicial authority should not have acted on the basis of such enquiries and in such a cavalier fashion. 12. Being aggrieved the Custom Authorities have come up with this appeal. 13. We find force in the submission of Mr. Prantosh Mukherjee, learned Advocate, appearing for the appellants, that the learned Judge ought not to have set aside the order of adjudication in the present writ petition and in doing so the learned Judge had gone beyond the scope of the writ petition. The present writ petition was moved challenging a show-cause-notice. We find force in the submission of Mr. Prantosh Mukherjee, learned Advocate, appearing for the appellants, that the learned Judge ought not to have set aside the order of adjudication in the present writ petition and in doing so the learned Judge had gone beyond the scope of the writ petition. The present writ petition was moved challenging a show-cause-notice. However, a learned Single Judge of this Court, at the admission stage, directed the writ petitioners to show cause and directed the Customs Authorities to adjudicate. The Customs Authorities after adjudication came to certain findings. There has been no fresh writ petition challenging the order of adjudication nor any prayer was made to amend the writ petition to throw a challenge to the order of adjudication. However, a supplementary affidavit was tiled and on the basis thereof the order of adjudication was set aside. 14. The order that has been set aside in the present writ application is admittedly an appealable order under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 to the appellate tribunal constituted under Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962. 15. There is no such rule that the High Court will not issue writs if there is other equally alternative remedy, but it is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion other than a rule of law. The learned Single Judge should have been slow in entertaining the writ petition by permitting the writ petitioners to circumvent the special provisions made providing for appeals in respect of the order. It is not a case that the Collector of Customs has reached findings, which no person properly instructed in law and acting judicially could have reached. The findings arrived at by the adjudicating authority were primarily findings of fact that the imported items were not waste papers and as such the importer was not entitled to import them without licence and without payment of custom duty. There has been no perversity in arriving at such conclusion requiring interference by this Court in constitutional writ jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge, in our view, erroneously acted as a Court of appeal and thereby acted beyond the scope of judicial review. In our view, there has been no violation of natural Justice as has been observed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, in our view, erroneously acted as a Court of appeal and thereby acted beyond the scope of judicial review. In our view, there has been no violation of natural Justice as has been observed by the learned Single Judge. In order to come to a proper finding the Custom Authorities conducted enquiries in the market and obtained, from well-known paper merchants, opinions that the papers, which have been imported could not be termed as waste papers. Having regard to the nature of the proceedings, it was not necessary that the importer should have been informed before the market surveyor they should have offered the persons, who have given their opinions, for cross-examination. 16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge ought not to have entertained the writ petition particularly when disputed facts have been investigated by the adjudicating authority. 17. Accordingly, the order impugned in set aside. The writ petition is dismissed and the appeal is allowed. 18. There will be no order as to costs. Let xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously. Mathur, C.J. : I agree.