2017 (2) TMI 240 - HC - Customs

No speaking order - Held that - Perusal of the above impugned order dated 12.02.2016 shows that the said order merely quotes the paras of the Foreign Trade Policy and the directions issued by the Division Bench. The order does not also deal with any of the submissions made by the petitioner. There is no rationale or reasoning in the impugned order dated 12.02.2016 elucidating to how and why the petitioner is not entitled to the issuance of the Duty Credit Scrips under the Foreign Trade Policy 2009 2014. The respondents are directed to pass a speaking order within a period of six weeks from today - Petition disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Non-compliance with court directions regarding passing a speaking order under Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014.

Analysis:
The petitioner was aggrieved by the respondents' inaction in complying with the Division Bench's directions issued in a previous judgment. The Division Bench had directed the respondent to ensure a speaking order is passed in accordance with specific clauses of the Foreign Trade Policy within eight weeks. However, the petitioner challenged an order passed by the respondents on the grounds of non-compliance with the directions.

The impugned order dated 12.02.2016 was found to lack rationale and reasoning regarding the petitioner's entitlement to Duty Credit Scrips under the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014. The order merely quoted policy provisions and directions without addressing the petitioner's submissions. As a result, the High Court held that the order did not comply with the Division Bench's directions and was unsustainable, leading to its quashing.

In response to the deficiencies in the impugned order, the High Court directed the respondents to pass a speaking order within six weeks. The speaking order should consider the petitioner's submissions, particularly regarding the inapplicability of a Supreme Court judgment and the impact of a Bombay High Court judgment. The High Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the judgments cited and left it to the respondents to assess their relevance while passing the new order.

Overall, the writ petition was disposed of with the directive for the respondents to issue a speaking order addressing the petitioner's claims and complying with the Division Bench's directions. The High Court emphasized the importance of providing reasoning and rationale in administrative orders to ensure transparency and fairness in decision-making processes under the Foreign Trade Policy.