TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Liability to pay customs duty under Special Advance Authorization remanded for fresh consideration with personal hearing and four-week deadline.</h1> Quashed a non-speaking administrative order and directed fresh consideration of claimed exemption from customs duty for goods imported under Special ... Liability to pay customs duty under Special Advance Authorization - differential duty based on Minimum Import Price - Non-speaking order - remand for fresh consideration with opportunity of personal hearing - Notification No.77/2023 - Customs Notification dated 01.04.2023 - Waiver of detention/demurrage - HELD THAT:- Being goods imported under Special Advance Authorization, necessarily, the contentions of the petitioner that they are not liable to pay customs duty ought to have been considered by the first respondent before passing the impugned order-in-original. The petitioner has also relied upon a Customs Notification before this Court to substantiate their claim that the petitioner is not liable to pay customs duty since the petitioner has obtained Special Advance Authorization and the said Notification is dated 01.04.2023. Since the impugned order-in-original is not a speaking order, with regard to the contentions of the petitioner raised in this Writ Petition, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order-in-original has to be quashed and the matter be remanded back to the very same respondent for fresh consideration after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to submit their explanation once again to the respondents as raised in this Writ Petition that they are not liable to pay any customs duty in view of the fact that they have already obtained the Special Advance Authorization for the subject goods. Necessarily, the respondents will have to consider the said explanation on merits and in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as per the Notification issued by the Customs Department within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been unable to seek release of the goods for a long period of time and in view of the categorical contention of the petitioner before this Court that they are not liable to pay customs duty for the subject goods, this Court deems it fit to direct the respondents to pass final orders within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner would be satisfied if one opportunity of personal hearing alone is given by the respondents before passing final order. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order-in-original dated 30.10.2024, which is a non-speaking order, is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded to the very same respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law. In case the petitioner succeeds, the respondents shall also consider the request of the petitioner for waiver of the detention / demurrage charges, in accordance with law. Writ Petition is disposed of. Issues: Whether the impugned non-speaking order dated 30.10.2024 confiscating the imported goods and imposing penalty without considering the petitioners claim of exemption from customs duty under a Special Advance Authorization is sustainable, and whether the order requires quashing and remand for fresh consideration with an opportunity of personal hearing.Analysis: The Court observed that the impugned order did not address the petitioners primary contention that the goods were imported under a Special Advance Authorization and therefore customs duty was not payable for release and subsequent re-export. The respondents failed to consider the petitioners detailed representation and relevant notifications and provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy relied upon by the petitioner. Given the non-speaking nature of the impugned order and the risk of irreparable loss to the petitioner (including the expiring validity period of the authorization), the Court found that the matter required fresh consideration on merits after affording an opportunity of personal hearing within a specified timeframe.Conclusion: The impugned order dated 30.10.2024 is quashed. The matter is remanded to the same respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law after the petitioner submits a detailed explanation within three days and is afforded one personal hearing; final orders to be passed within four weeks of receipt of the explanation. If the petitioner succeeds, respondents shall consider waiver of detention/demurrage charges in accordance with law.Ratio Decidendi: An administrative order that affects statutory entitlements must be a speaking order addressing the substantive contentions (including claims under Special Advance Authorization) and, where not done, the order can be quashed and remanded for fresh consideration after providing an opportunity of personal hearing.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
