Order Overturned: Case Sent Back for Re-Adjudication Due to Lack of Personal Hearing, Must Conclude in Six Weeks.

The HC set aside the impugned Orders in Original, which directed credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund based on unjust enrichment without a personal hearing. The matter was remitted to the competent authority for re-adjudication under Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The authority must provide a personal hearing to the petitioner and complete the process within six weeks.

---

---

Issues involved: Impugning Orders in Original directing credit to Consumer Welfare Fund u/s unjust enrichment without personal hearing.

Summary:
The petitioner challenged Orders in Original dated 24.07.2023 directing the credit of refund amounts to the Consumer Welfare Fund based on the principle of unjust enrichment without granting a personal hearing. The senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the orders contained apparent errors as no personal hearing was provided, and the documents submitted were misinterpreted. Specifically, discrepancies were noted in the treatment of customs duty refund amounts in the orders compared to the balance sheet of the authority. The petitioner argued that with a personal hearing, these errors could have been rectified, and other discrepancies could have been highlighted. Additionally, it was argued that the orders failed to consider the precedent set by a judgment of a Coordinate Bench of the Court. The respondent's counsel, on instructions, expressed willingness to offer a fresh opportunity to the petitioner. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter to the competent authority for re-adjudication concerning the alleged unjust enrichment and appropriation of funds to the Consumer Welfare Fund as per Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The competent authority was directed to provide a personal hearing to the petitioner before making any decisions regarding the fund credit, with a stipulated completion period of six weeks.

---