2019 (6) TMI 754 - HC - Customs

Benefit of exemption from basic customs duty - Sl.No.408A PF N/N.12/2012 -Customs dated 17.03.2012 - HELD THAT - The refund application is in the prescribed form and there is no dispute or disagreement before this Court on this aspect of the matter. From the refund application which is in prescribed form, it comes to light that there is a provision of personal hearing and the writ petitioner has opted for personal hearing or in other words, the writ petitioner sought for personal hearing by answering in the affirmative to the query (vide column 12 in the prescribed form) as to whether personal hearing is required. Notwithstanding the aforesaid position, there is no mention about the personal hearing in the impugned order. There is nothing before this Court to demonstrate that an opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the writ petitioner. Learned counsel for writ petitioner, on instructions, asserts that no personal hearing can be granted to the petitioner. This is recorded - Therefore, this case falls under the category of violation of 'Natural Justice Principles' (NJP). Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Eligibility for exemption from basic customs duty for 'Fingerprint Readers'.
2. Rejection of refund plea for said goods.
3. Violation of Natural Justice Principles (NJP) in the absence of affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the writ petitioner.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The writ petition revolves around the eligibility of 'Fingerprint Readers' for exemption from basic customs duty under Sl.No.408A PF Notification No.12/2012 -Customs dated 17.03.2012. The court refrains from expressing an opinion on this aspect, focusing on the primary issue of the refund plea rejection by the first respondent.

2. The impugned order by the first respondent, rejecting the refund plea for the said goods, was criticized for being cryptic and lacking detail. The court noted that the application for refund, in a prescribed template form, indicated the writ petitioner's request for a personal hearing, which was not mentioned in the impugned order. The absence of evidence demonstrating the provision of a personal hearing led to a conclusion of a violation of 'Natural Justice Principles' (NJP).

3. In light of the violation of NJP, the court intervened in the writ jurisdiction and set aside the impugned order. The first respondent was directed to process the refund application after affording the writ petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing. The court mandated the completion of this process within four weeks and instructed the communication of the decision to the writ petitioner within seven working days of the order.

Overall, the judgment focused on addressing the procedural irregularity in the refund process concerning 'Fingerprint Readers', emphasizing the importance of adhering to Natural Justice Principles and ensuring a fair opportunity for personal hearing in such matters.