Reasoned customs order requirement: non-speaking confiscation order quashed and remanded for fresh consideration of duty exemption claim.

A non-speaking order-in-original confiscating imported goods and imposing penalty was quashed because it failed to consider the importer's contention that no customs duty was payable under the Special Advance Authorization scheme. The authority also omitted to address the DGFT notification and customs notification relied on in support of that claim. As the dispute required merits-based examination and reasons were absent, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration after granting a personal hearing and evaluating the petitioner's explanation and supporting materials in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the non-speaking order-in-original confiscating the imported goods and imposing penalty was liable to be quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration of the petitioner's claim that no customs duty was payable under the Special Advance Authorization scheme.

Analysis: The petitioner's principal contention, namely that imports made under a Special Advance Authorization did not attract customs duty, was not considered in the impugned order. The order also did not deal with the petitioner's explanation based on the relevant DGFT notification and the customs notification relied upon before the Court. As the dispute turned on issues requiring consideration on merits, the absence of reasons in the impugned order meant that the petitioner's contentions had to be examined afresh. The Court therefore directed the authority to grant an opportunity of personal hearing and to consider the petitioner's explanation and supporting materials in accordance with law within a fixed time frame.

Conclusion: The non-speaking order was quashed and the matter was remanded to the same authority for fresh consideration, with an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

---