2023 (11) TMI 919 - HC - Customs

Principles of natural justice - non-speaking order - Denial of the benefit of S1.No.530 of Notification No.152/2009-Cus, dated 31.12.2009 - HELD THAT - Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is the duty of the Officer to deal with the same in a proper perspective and provide reasons for denying the benefit of the exemption claimed. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the orders appear to be a non speaking order and the same is liable to be set aside. While setting aside the order of the respondents, the matter is remitted back for re-adjudication by the 1st respondent taking into consideration the exemption under Notification No152/2009-Cus dated 31.12.2009 as claimed in the bill of Entry dated 02.10.2020 - petition disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the denial of customs exemption under Notification No.152/2009-Cus, the lack of a speaking order by the 2nd respondent, and the urgency of goods clearance due to non-consideration of claimed exemptions.

Denial of Customs Exemption:
The petitioner imported goods and claimed customs exemption under Notification No.152/2009-Cus dated 31.12.2009. However, the assessment was conducted under the Faceless Assessment Procedure at the Port of Kolkota without considering the said exemption. The Authorities did not provide reasons for denying the claimed exemption for goods listed in Sl.Nos.3, 4, and 5 of the bill of Entry. Consequently, the petitioner paid the differential duty under protest and filed an online grievance for a speaking order. The Court found the respondent's order to be non-speaking and set it aside, remitting the matter for re-adjudication by the 1st respondent within eight weeks.

Lack of Speaking Order:
The petitioner sought a direction for the 2nd respondent to issue a speaking order regarding the denial of customs exemption under Notification No.152/2009-Cus for specific goods listed in the bill of Entry. The petitioner had urgently cleared the goods after paying the differential duty under protest, as the Authorities did not consider the claimed exemptions and failed to provide reasons for denial. The Court held that the lack of a speaking order was a procedural flaw, necessitating the setting aside of the order and a re-adjudication by the 1st respondent within eight weeks.

Urgency of Goods Clearance:
Due to the urgent need for the goods, the petitioner cleared them after paying the differential duty under protest. The Authorities did not consider the claimed customs exemptions under Notification No.152/2009-Cus dated 31.12.2009 for goods listed in Sl.Nos.3, 4, and 5 of the bill of Entry. The petitioner filed an online grievance seeking a speaking order, which was advised to approach the Port Assessment Group. The Court found the respondent's order to be non-speaking and set it aside, directing re-adjudication by the 1st respondent within a time frame of eight weeks.