2020 (1) TMI 284 - HC - Customs

Principles of natural justice - non-speaking order - Direction to petitioners to remit the duty along with the interest - no prior opportunity was given to the writ petitioners for put forth their objections - HELD THAT - This Court is of the view that if the respondents are of the opinion that the petitioners are duty bound to remit the duty, such decision can be made only after giving due consideration to the objections raised by the petitioners and that non-consideration of any such objections will amount to violation of the principles of natural justice, apart from being termed as a non-speaking order. Impugned orders are set aside with liberty to the respondents to issue a fresh SCN - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Lack of prior opportunity to present objections before remitting duty, violation of principles of natural justice, non-speaking order

The judgment by the Madras High Court dealt with the issue of whether the petitioners were given a prior opportunity to present their objections before being directed to remit duty. The court noted that the impugned orders did not reference the objections raised by the petitioners nor provided reasons for not considering them. The court emphasized that under the Customs Act, a decision to remit duty should only be made after due consideration of objections to avoid violating the principles of natural justice and issuing a non-speaking order.

The Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners argued that representations had been made requesting duty remission since February 2007, but the impugned orders did not address these objections. On the other hand, the Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioners were obligated to remit duty under the Customs Act, asserting no infirmity in the orders. The court highlighted the necessity for considering objections raised by the petitioners before compelling duty remittance to uphold principles of natural justice.

In its decision, the Madras High Court set aside the impugned orders dated March 29, 2008, and July 17, 2008, with the liberty for the respondents to issue a fresh show cause notice. The court directed the respondents to provide the petitioners with a personal hearing to consider their objections and make a decision in accordance with the law. The judgment emphasized the importance of affording the petitioners an opportunity to present their case before any duty remittance decision is finalized.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petitions without imposing costs, emphasizing the need for adherence to principles of natural justice and the requirement for a speaking order that considers objections raised by the concerned parties. The judgment highlighted the significance of providing a fair opportunity for the petitioners to be heard before any duty remittance obligations are enforced.