2018 (3) TMI 871 - AT - Customs

Passing of a public order - principle of judicial discipline - Held that - the basic principle of judicial discipline is that a person who hears should pass an order and should not fancifully communicate his order through a subordinate who has not heard the matter - learned Commissioner is directed to pass a public order hearing the appellant publicly without communicating his decision through a subordinate. While passing appropriate order, learned Authority shall grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant and record its pleadings as well as evidence. Stating reason of his decision, he shall pass appropriate order - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of decision conveyed by subordinate without public order
2. Judicial discipline and jurisprudence regarding passing orders
3. Early hearing application and appeal disposal
4. Lack of reason specified in communication from Deputy Commissioner
5. Requirement of reasonable opportunity of hearing and recording of pleadings
6. Service of order copy to concerned parties
7. Communication to Chief Commissioner for issuing guidelines

Issue 1: Validity of decision conveyed by subordinate without public order
The judgment emphasizes the importance of public orders being passed by public authorities publicly to serve public interest. It refers to the jurisprudence established by the Apex Court in Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji and Gullapalli Nageshwar Rao vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, highlighting that decisions should not be conveyed by subordinates without being passed publicly and behind the back of the appellant. The Appellate Tribunal directs the learned Commissioner to pass a public order hearing the appellant publicly without communicating the decision through a subordinate.

Issue 2: Judicial discipline and passing of orders
The judgment stresses the basic principle of judicial discipline, stating that a person who hears a matter should pass the order and not communicate it through a subordinate who has not heard the case. It cites the position of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gullapalli Nageshwar Rao vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, emphasizing the importance of the authority passing the order after hearing the case directly.

Issue 3: Early hearing application and appeal disposal
Referring to the observations of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Bhatia Global Trading Ltd. Vs. CC, Mangalore, the judgment disposes of the early hearing application of the appellant and the appeal, expecting the order of the Commissioner to be issued by a specified date. The appellant's genuine hardship and pending customs clearance for its vessel are acknowledged.

Issue 4: Lack of reason specified in communication from Deputy Commissioner
The judgment notes that the communication from the Deputy Commissioner does not specify the reason why the appellant has to carry out the direction of his superior communicated by him without an order of a quasi-judicial authority. It highlights that the absence of reasons in such communications undermines the principles of justice.

Issue 5: Requirement of reasonable opportunity of hearing and recording of pleadings
The judgment directs the learned Authority to grant the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing, record its pleadings and evidence, and provide reasons for the decision while passing an appropriate order. This emphasizes the importance of due process and fair treatment in judicial proceedings.

Issue 6: Service of order copy to concerned parties
The Registry is instructed to expeditiously serve a copy of the order on the learned Commissioner and the learned DR for Revenue for appropriate communication to the learned Commissioner. This step ensures that all relevant parties are informed of the Tribunal's decision.

Issue 7: Communication to Chief Commissioner for issuing guidelines
A copy of the order is to be communicated to the learned Chief Commissioner, Customs by the Deputy Registrar for issuing appropriate guidelines to field officers to prevent litigants from being left without a remedy. This action aims to ensure procedural fairness and adherence to legal principles in future cases.