Quasi-judicial customs assessment requires disclosed reasons and fair hearing; undisclosed adverse material can invalidate the valuation.

Customs assessment under the Sea Customs Act is treated as quasi-judicial, so natural justice and reasoned, speaking orders apply. Where the assessment is subject to appeal or revision, the authority must disclose the material relied on and give the affected party a fair opportunity to meet adverse evidence; otherwise the appellate remedy is undermined. In the discussed assessment of export duty on manganese ore, brief conclusions without disclosure of the basis for higher valuation were said to be unsustainable, and the matter was to be reassessed in accordance with fairness requirements.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether customs assessment proceedings under the Sea Customs Act were quasi-judicial in character so as to attract the requirements of natural justice and reasoned orders; (ii) whether the assessment of export duty on the manganese ore consignments was valid when the authorities did not disclose the material relied on and did not give the assessee an effective opportunity to meet it.

Issue (i): Whether customs assessment proceedings under the Sea Customs Act were quasi-judicial in character so as to attract the requirements of natural justice and reasoned orders.

Analysis: The availability of appeal and revision showed that the assessment function was not a purely ministerial act. Where an order is appealable, the appellate remedy can be effective only if the original authority states the basis of its decision. Fairness also requires that the affected party know the material on which the authority proposes to act, especially where adverse material is relied upon behind its back.

Conclusion: Yes. The proceedings were treated as requiring observance of natural justice and the making of speaking orders.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment of export duty on the manganese ore consignments was valid when the authorities did not disclose the material relied on and did not give the assessee an effective opportunity to meet it.

Analysis: The assessing authority and the appellate authority gave only brief conclusions, without stating the material or reasons supporting the higher valuation. The assessee was not told what evidence was used, could not rebut it, and the declared value and supporting test material were not given due consideration in the orders. In these circumstances the assessment could not be sustained as lawful.

Conclusion: No. The assessment orders were held invalid and the matter was directed to be reassessed after proper observance of the requirements of fairness.

Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded, the impugned duty assessments were set aside, and a fresh reassessment was directed in accordance with law and the observations made in the judgment.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory assessment is subject to appeal or revision, the assessing authority must disclose the material relied upon and give a reasoned decision so that the appellate remedy remains effective and the affected party has a fair opportunity to meet the case against it.

---