2014 (10) TMI 117 - HC - Customs

Misdeclaration of goods - Held that - The petitioner filed a statutory appeal before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent was expected to consider the appeal memorandum in the light of the order passed by the original authority. However, very strangely, the 2nd respondent recorded that the adjudicating Commissioner has taken an appropriate view in determining levy of redemption fine and penalty which calls for no interference. The order does not contain any indication that the merits of the matter was considered by the 2nd respondent. - The authorities while exercising quasi-judicial functions must record reasons in support of their conclusion. It is not necessary to pass a lengthy order. In case, reasons are supplemented it would enable the appellate and revisional authorities to ascertain the materials considered by the authority in arriving at a decision in a particular manner. In case reasons are not furnished in the order, it would result in failure of justice - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to rejection of statutory appeal based on non-speaking order.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of a statutory appeal by the 2nd respondent, which was based on a non-speaking order. The 1st respondent alleged misdeclaration against the petitioner regarding imported goods, leading to the initiation of proceedings. The order passed by the 1st respondent was challenged before the 2nd respondent, who dismissed the appeal in a brief manner without considering the merits of the case. The lack of reasons in the order by the 2nd respondent was highlighted as a failure of justice, as quasi-judicial authorities are required to provide reasoning for their decisions. The necessity of stating reasons was emphasized, citing legal precedents that reasons introduce clarity and are essential for good administration and justice. The High Court referred to previous judgments emphasizing the importance of giving reasons in decision-making processes, as it helps in understanding the application of mind by the decision-maker. The absence of reasons can impede the appellate function and judicial review, affecting the affected party's right to know the basis of the decision against them.

The High Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration. The 2nd respondent was directed to reevaluate the case on its merits and in accordance with the law, ensuring a fair opportunity for the petitioner to be heard. The writ petition was allowed in part without costs, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed, concluding the legal judgment.