Judgment :- 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the files of the second respondent pertaining to its bearing Order O.S.No.112/batch A dated 21.05.2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to release the gold weighing 108.41 grams seized on 21.05.2014 and refund the duty amount to a sum of Rs.35,000/- which was levied by the respondent. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order in original, dated 21.05.2014, passed by the second respondent confiscating the case under Section 111(d), (1) (m) & (o) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (D&R) Act, 1992. Further, penalty of Rs.35,000/- was imposed on the petitioner through the impugned order. 3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. A perusal of the impugned order would show that as against the order made in original, an appeal would lie to the Commissioner (Appeal) within 60 days under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. It is repeatedly held by this Court on very many occasions that when a statutory remedy of appeal is available, more particularly, in fiscal matters, question of approaching this Court under Article 226 does not arise for seeking the relief or challenging the order passed by the adjudication authorities. The following decisions are relevant to the above facts:- 1) M/s.Nivaram Pharma Private Limited rep.by its Director Sardarmal M.Chordia, Madras -vs- The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Regional Bench, Madras and others reported in (2005) 2 MLJ 246 (DB) 2) United Bank of India -vs- Satyawati Tondon and others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 3) Raj Kumar Shivhare -vs- Assistant Director, directorate of Enforcement and Another reported in (2010) 4 SCC 772 4) Metal Weld Electrodes -vs- CESTAT, Chennai reported in 2014 (299) ELT 3 DB. 5. Considering the above stated position with regard to the availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner, I am of the view that the present writ petition is not maintainable and hence, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any such appeal is preferred by the petitioner, the appellate authority has to consider the appeal and decide and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks thereafter. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs.