TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 743
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant used to claim, DEPB benefits for the exports made. Subsequent to withdrawal of DEPB scheme, the appellants state that they were under the impression that no other export incentive is available and hence they had made the aforementioned exports under free shipping bills. Later on the appellants realized that the subject goods were entitled to All Industry Rate of Duty Drawback in terms of Notification No. 92/2012 - Customs (NT) dated 4-10-2012 and Notification No. 96/2013- Customs (NT) dated 14-09-2013. 3. The appellants vide their letter dated 15-05-2014 addressed to the respondent, placing reliance on para 4 of the Circular No.36/2010-Cus. dated 23.09.2010 requested the Respondent to allow All Industry Rate of duty drawback on goods exported under free shipping bills, without conversion of such free shipping bills to drawback scheme shipping bills, in terms of the proviso to Rule 12(1)(a), Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995. Based on the said circular the copies of shipping bills were enclosed to process the drawback claim and credit the drawback amount in their account. The appellant reiterated their request vide their letter dated 07.11.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issue that arises for our determination is whether the rejection of the appellant's request vide the impugned communication/order is proper. 8. The relevant portion of the impugned communication in F.No.S.Misc.17/2014-EXP-AIR dated 27-04-2015 is as reproduced below: "Please refer to your letter dated 09.03.2015 on the above mentioned subject. In this regard, it is informed that your request for processing of the free shipping bills under drawback scheme without conversion in terms of the provisions to Rule 12(1)(a) of the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 cannot be considered and the same merits rejection. This is issued with approval of Commissioner (Air)." 9. It is evident from the above that it is bereft of any reason as to why the request of the appellant is found to merit rejection. There is also no reference to the factum of the appellant having been heard in the said matter before the said decision was taken. Ex facie, the said communication/order is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 10. It would be appropriate at this juncture to note with profit the Apex court decision in Kranti Associates Pvt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or 'rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737). (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions". (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reaso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the reasons in support of the findings on such issues, which to the authority's mind justifies its conclusion. In the instant case, we find that the impugned order/communication is woefully deficient in providing any such reasons. 13. We now address the submission of the Ld.A.R. that it is the discretion of the proper officer to convert the shipping bills and that the appellant has not even requested for conversion of shipping bills. She has also placed reliance on Customs Circular No. 46/2011 and the decision in JK Tyre and Industries, 2024 (8) TMI 1220 - CESTAT, Chennai. We notice that the said decision of this Tribunal was rendered in the context of a case where the appellant therein had preferred an application for conversion of shipping bills under NFEI Scheme to drawback scheme and to the consequent duty drawback under the provisions of Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Re-export of Imported Goods (Drawback of Customs Duties) Rules, 1995. That apart, the order impugned therein provided reasons for not acceding to the request of the importer/exporter. Whereas in the present case, not only is the appellant not seeking conversion of the shipping bill as misconstru....