2019 (11) TMI 849 - HC - Customs

Amendment of shipping bills - rejection of request of the petitioner for conversion of Advance Licence shipping bills to Drawback shipping bills - HELD THAT - A Full Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of MOHINDER SINGH GILL ANR. VERSUS THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI ORS. 1977 (12) TMI 138 - SUPREME COURT considers a similar situation where the impugned order, in that case as well, was wholly non-speaking and did not contain any reasons in support of the conclusion - The observations of the Bench in the aforesaid matter are equally applicable to the case on hand, since R1, before me, has furnished reasons supplementing the impugned order only by way of counter. The first respondent will issue a notice to the petitioner calling upon it to appear for a personal hearing and pass orders de novo on the request of the petitioner for conversion of Advance Licence shipping bills to Drawback shipping bills - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order rejecting conversion of Advance Licence shipping bills to Drawback shipping bills due to non-speaking nature of the order.

Analysis:
The Writ Petition challenges an order dated 17.08.2007 by the Commissioner of Customs rejecting the petitioner's request for conversion of Advance Licence shipping bills to Drawback shipping bills. The main contention is that the impugned order lacks reasoning for the rejection. The order merely cites non-compliance with guidelines and conditions without providing detailed rationale. The petitioner argued that the order is non-speaking, similar to the case of Mohinder Singh Gill where the Supreme Court emphasized that orders must be judged based on the reasons mentioned and cannot be supplemented later. The court agreed that the impugned order was deficient in providing adequate reasons for the decision.

The court referred to the Full Bench decision in Mohinder Singh Gill's case, highlighting the importance of orders being clear and containing sufficient reasons. The judgment emphasized that public orders made by statutory authorities must be construed objectively based on the language used in the order itself. The court found that the reasons provided by the first respondent in a counter affidavit were insufficient to supplement the original order. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and directed the first respondent to issue a notice for a personal hearing to the petitioner. The first respondent was instructed to pass a speaking order on the request for conversion within four weeks after the personal hearing.

In conclusion, the Writ Petition was allowed, and no costs were imposed. The court's decision was based on the principle that orders must be clear, reasoned, and made with proper consideration of all relevant factors. The judgment underscores the importance of transparency and adherence to procedural fairness in administrative decisions, especially when they impact the rights of individuals or entities involved in legal proceedings.