Failure to consider relevant statements and lack of corroboration justified setting aside a customs penalty order and remanding it.

An appellate order sustaining a reduced penalty was set aside because it was brief, cryptic, and failed to consider relevant statements and the full record. The order relied mainly on one Section 108 Customs Act statement, while other statements and the petitioner's own statement were not examined, and there was no documentary or independent corroboration of involvement in the alleged misuse of imported goods. The earlier customs adjudication had considered the wider material and declined to impose penalty. The decision-making error justified certiorari, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration by the Appellate Committee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate order sustaining and reducing the penalty could be upheld when it failed to consider relevant statements and the record disclosed no independent corroboration of the petitioner's involvement.

Analysis: The impugned appellate order was found to be brief and cryptic and did not deal with the material aspects raised in challenge. The order under appeal had relied substantially on one statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, while other relevant statements and the petitioner's own statement were not examined. The record also disclosed no documentary or independent evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged misuse of imported goods. In contrast, the earlier customs adjudication had considered the full range of statements and had declined to impose penalty. The omission to consider the relevant material and the absence of corroboration amounted to an error in the decision-making process.

Conclusion: The appellate order could not be sustained, the writ of certiorari was warranted, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision by the Appellate Committee.

---