Reasoned customs adjudication and fair hearing are mandatory; penalty order quashed for lack of reasons and opportunity.

A customs penalty order was quashed because it failed to disclose intelligible reasons or the basis for its findings, and the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity to defend itself. The authority refused a request to summon the relevant customs/port officer and rejected draft survey material without adequate consideration, undermining fair hearing requirements. In proceedings under the Customs Act, the adjudicating authority was required to act as a quasi-judicial tribunal and record reasoned findings. The matter was remanded for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the customs penalty order was liable to be quashed for want of reasons and for denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The impugned order imposed a substantial penalty but did not disclose the reasons or the basis for the findings recorded. The refusal to issue witness summons to the relevant customs/port officer, despite a specific request, and the rejection of the draft survey material without adequate consideration showed denial of a fair opportunity. In proceedings attracting Section 116 read with Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, the authority was required to act as a quasi-judicial tribunal and record intelligible findings supported by reasons.

Conclusion: The order was held unsustainable for absence of reasons and denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing. It was quashed and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Collector of Customs for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

---