Natural justice in redemption letter withdrawal requires prior hearing and recorded reasons before fresh decision-making.

Withdrawal of a redemption letter was unsustainable where no prior hearing was given on fulfilment of the export obligation and no cogent reasons supported the withdrawal. An explanation first raised in an affidavit could not cure the absence of reasons in the impugned action. The matter therefore required fresh consideration, with the petitioner to be heard before any fresh decision on the redemption issue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the withdrawal of the redemption letter could stand without prior hearing and without disclosure of cogent reasons, and whether the matter required fresh consideration by the respondents.

Analysis: The withdrawal was found to be unsupported by cogent reasons. The Court noted that the asserted basis of inadvertence was introduced in the affidavit and could not cure the absence of reasons in the impugned withdrawal. Since the petitioner had not been heard on the question of fulfilment of export obligation, the impugned action was not sustained as final determination of the matter. The proper course was fresh decision-making after hearing the petitioner.

Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded to the extent that the respondents were directed to grant a hearing and pass a fresh order within the stipulated time.

---