Contemporaneous reasoning requirement: an adjudication order was set aside for being non-speaking and remanded for fresh decision.

An adjudication order was found to be a non-speaking order because the operative decision was issued before the reasons were recorded. Reasons added later could not form part of the original adjudication, as a valid order must contain contemporaneous reasoning at the time the decision is made. The order was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for de novo adjudication, with a direction to afford the appellant a personal hearing and re-adjudicate the dispute afresh.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adjudication order was liable to be set aside as a non-speaking order and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The operative part of the adjudication order had been passed first and the reasons were recorded later. The reasons recorded subsequently could not form part of the original order. An adjudicatory order must have its reasons recorded before the decision is passed, so that the order is supported by contemporaneous reasoning.

Conclusion: The order was held to be a non-speaking order and was set aside. The matter was remanded for de novo adjudication with a direction to afford the appellant a personal hearing and to re-adjudicate the dispute within one month.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the impugned order was quashed and the customs adjudication was restored for fresh decision by the original authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A reasoned adjudication must be supported by contemporaneous reasons forming part of the decision itself, and reasons recorded after the operative order cannot validate it.

---