2011 (6) TMI 704 - HC - Customs

Whether the CESTAT failed to discuss the matter and by way of a brief order rejected the appeal on the sole ground that neither in the grounds of appeal nor in the arguments made by the Department no additional points were raised so as to take a different view? Held that - In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of Due Process . The order impugned in this appeal does not contain any reason, much less, justifiable reasons in support of the conclusion. Therefore, we are of the view that the matter requires fresh consideration by the CESTAT. In the result, the order dated 28-10-2009 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the CESTAT for fresh consideration. The CESTAT is directed to decide the matter on merits and as per law, as expeditiously as possible.

Summary

Issues:
Verification of relationship influence on transaction value of imported goods; Validity of order by statutory authority; Adequacy of reasoning in CESTAT's decision.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging a non-speaking order by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) related to the influence of relationship between an importer and a supplier on the transaction value of imported goods. The department had found the importer and supplier related under Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, based on the foreign supplier's share capital in an Indian company. The first appellate authority, however, held that the relationship was not proven as per Rule 2(2)(iv)(c) of the Rules, and allowed the appeal. The Customs Department then appealed to CESTAT, which dismissed the appeal without providing reasons. The appellant contended that CESTAT's decision lacked objectivity, citing a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the need for reasoned decisions in such matters.

The respondent argued that no new material was presented to warrant a different finding from the first appellate authority. The High Court noted that CESTAT's non-speaking order was unjustified in a statutory appeal involving the Department and an importer. Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the High Court emphasized the importance of recording reasons in decisions affecting parties, ensuring justice is not only done but also appears to be done. The lack of reasons in CESTAT's decision led the High Court to set aside the order and remit the matter for fresh consideration, directing CESTAT to decide expeditiously and within three months.

In conclusion, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was allowed, setting aside the previous order and remitting the matter to CESTAT for a reasoned decision within a specified timeframe. The judgment underscores the necessity of providing justifiable reasons in decisions affecting parties, in line with principles of justice, accountability, and transparency in the legal system.