Fair hearing in refund matters requires disclosure of relied-upon material and reasoned consideration of all material objections.

A refund refusal based on Board Instruction No. 22/2022-Customs was set aside because the authority did not address the petitioner's material objections, including reliance on an earlier binding decision, the timing of the instruction after sale of the seized gold, and the validity of the alleged prior notices. As the petitioner was not given a meaningful opportunity to meet the material relied upon, the decision-making process was incomplete. The customs authority was directed to reconsider the balance refund claim afresh after supplying the relied-upon material, receiving additional submissions, granting a personal hearing, and passing a speaking order in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order sanctioning refund required interference for failure to consider the petitioner's contentions and for relying upon Board's Instruction No. 22/2022-Customs without furnishing it to the petitioner. (ii) Whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration of the balance refund claim.

Issue (i): Whether the order sanctioning refund required interference for failure to consider the petitioner's contentions and for relying upon Board's Instruction No. 22/2022-Customs without furnishing it to the petitioner.

Analysis: The impugned order was founded on the net realised sale value of the seized gold and on the Board's instruction, but it did not deal with several material objections, including the petitioner's reliance on the earlier binding decision concerning refund on market value, the objection to application of the instruction after the sale of the gold, and the challenge to the alleged notices said to have preceded the sale. Since the petitioner was not afforded a meaningful opportunity to meet the material relied upon, and the order did not address the relevant contentions, the decision-making process was found to be incomplete.

Conclusion: The order could not be sustained to the extent it refused the balance refund and required interference.

Issue (ii): Whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration of the balance refund claim.

Analysis: In view of the omitted considerations, the proper course was to set aside the refusal component and direct a fresh decision on the remaining claim after supplying the material proposed to be relied upon, permitting additional submissions, granting a personal hearing, and requiring a speaking order. The authority was directed to decide the claim independently and in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the customs authority for fresh consideration of the balance refund claim.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner secured partial relief: the refusal to grant the remaining refund was set aside, and the customs authority was required to reconsider the claim afresh after hearing the petitioner and passing a reasoned order.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a refund order is based on material not effectively disclosed to the affected party and fails to address material objections, the refusal component is liable to be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration after compliance with fair-hearing requirements.

---