1971 (2) TMI 43 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of original order based on violation of natural justice.
2. Adequacy of appellate order regarding the deposit under section 129.
3. Validity of revisional order due to lack of reasons provided.

Analysis:

The petitioner, a shopkeeper, was issued a memo by the Customs Divisional Preventive Unit for alleged importation without a valid license, leading to a penalty and seizure of goods. The petitioner appealed the penalty under section 128 of the Customs Act, but the appeal was rejected for non-compliance with section 129 as the penalty was not deposited. The petitioner sought dispensation due to hardship, but the appeal was still rejected. A revisional application was made to the Central Government, which was also rejected without providing reasons. The petitioner challenged the orders in the High Court, alleging violations of natural justice and lack of reasons for rejection.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the original order was invalid due to a violation of natural justice and that the appellate order did not consider the petitioner's application for dispensation without providing an opportunity to explain the non-deposit of the penalty. Additionally, it was contended that the revisional order lacked validity as no reasons were given for the rejection by the Central Government. The court noted the importance of providing reasons in quasi-judicial proceedings, citing a Supreme Court decision. The court found that the Central Government's order lacked reasons and, based on this ground alone, ruled in favor of the petitioner. The court held that the revisional application should be reconsidered by the Central Government with proper adherence to the law.

In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the Central Government's rejection of the revisional application and directing the authority to reevaluate the application in accordance with the law. The court made the Rule absolute on the limited ground of lack of reasons provided in the revisional order. No costs were awarded in this judgment, which was also stated to govern a related case.