Court sets aside original order, directs fresh hearing within two weeks. Status quo maintained, no opinion on merits.

The Court set aside the original order due to procedural irregularities, directing a fresh hearing and a speaking order within two weeks. The status quo was maintained for the goods, and no opinion on the merits was expressed. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the interim application was also resolved accordingly.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity and quashing of the impugned Standing Orders.
2. Release of imported goods based on the invoice price.
3. Compensation for costs and losses due to detention of goods.
4. Interim stay on the operation of the impugned Standing Orders.
5. Procedural irregularities in the adjudication process.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity and Quashing of the Impugned Standing Orders:
The Petitioner challenged the vires of Standing Order No.7493/99 dated 3rd December 1999 and its subsequent amendment in Standing Order No.44/2016 dated 8th July 2016, arguing that these orders were contrary to the Customs Act, 1962. The Court, however, did not find it necessary to deal with this challenge, referencing the Supreme Court case of Varsha Plastics Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Union of India, which held that the Standing Orders are not binding but serve as guidelines to streamline the functioning of Customs Officers.

2. Release of Imported Goods Based on the Invoice Price:
The Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to release the imported goods by accepting the price indicated in the invoice and declared in the Bill of Entry. The Court noted that the goods were withheld due to alleged mis-declaration of value, as the unit price in the commercial invoices was lower than the rates found on the S&P Global Platts website. The adjudicating authority re-determined the value and imposed a fine and penalty, leading to the confiscation of goods.

3. Compensation for Costs and Losses Due to Detention of Goods:
The Petitioner claimed compensation for ascertainable costs and losses, including detention charges and CFS ground rent charges, due to the alleged failure of the Respondent-Authorities to clear the goods for home consumption. The Court did not specifically address this issue in the final judgment.

4. Interim Stay on the Operation of the Impugned Standing Orders:
Pending the hearing and final disposal of the writ petition, the Petitioner sought a stay on the operation of the impugned Standing Orders. The Court passed several interim orders, directing the Respondents to file affidavits and produce records but did not grant a stay on the Standing Orders.

5. Procedural Irregularities in the Adjudication Process:
The Court found significant procedural irregularities in the adjudication process. The adjudicating authority recorded the operative part of the order on 4th September 2020 without providing reasons, which were later included in a typed speaking order signed on 24th September 2020. The Court criticized this approach, stating it was against the basic tenets of conduct by quasi-judicial authorities. The Court highlighted the need for a speaking order that contains all details, clear findings, and reasons, as required by the Customs Act and relevant circulars.

Conclusion:
The Court set aside the order in original dated “4th September 2020 signed on 24th September 2020 and issued on 24th September 2020” due to procedural irregularities. It directed the Respondent No.2 to appoint another officer to hear the case afresh and pass a speaking order with reasons within two weeks. The Court maintained the status quo concerning the goods under Bill of Entry No. 8389492 dated 6th August 2020 and did not express any opinion on the merits of the matter. The writ petition was disposed of in these terms, and there was no order as to costs. The interim application was also disposed of accordingly.

---