Reasoned exercise of discretion under Rule 173C(11) is required; non-speaking refusal can be quashed despite alternative remedy.

Rule 173C(11) gives the Collector a discretion to permit duty assessment on declared invoice value where the goods or market fluctuations justify it, but any refusal must show reasons and consideration of relevant circumstances. A bare rejection without reasons is vulnerable as arbitrary and is open to revision and writ scrutiny. The availability of an alternative statutory remedy does not necessarily bar writ relief where the impugned order is non-speaking and ignores material considerations. In the decision discussed, the order was quashed and the matter was sent back for fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the assessee's request under Rule 173C(11) could be sustained when it contained no reasons and disclosed no consideration of the relevant circumstances, and whether the availability of an alternative remedy barred writ relief.

Analysis: Rule 173C(11) confers a discretionary power on the Collector to permit assessment of duty on the basis of declared invoice value where the nature of the goods or frequent market fluctuations justify such treatment. An order passed under that provision must disclose reasons, even if briefly stated, because the authority is required to examine the request on relevant considerations and the order is amenable to revision and writ scrutiny. A bare refusal without reasons is vulnerable as arbitrary. The existence of an alternative statutory remedy did not preclude the Court from interfering in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed and the matter was directed to be reconsidered afresh after taking into account the relevant circumstances and any timely representation by the petitioner.

---