2009 (1) TMI 280

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he respondent did not produce any licence, the goods were confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The Bill of Entry was taken up for adjudication by the appellants. The respondent, in his letter, dated 23-8-2007, requested the appellants to release the goods. Pending consideration of such a request by the appellants, the respondent approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition No. 29185 of 2007, praying for a direction to release the goods. 3. The learned single Judge, while disposing of the Writ Petition, by an order, dated 19-9-2007, directed the appellants to release the goods to the respondent on payment of duty on the enhanced value and also depositing a sum of 35% on the enhanced value towards redemption, fin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....this behalf." 8. As per the above provision, the import of second-hand capital goods, including refurbished/reconditioned spares, shall be allowed freely. However, second-hand photocopier machines, which are the subject matter in this case, will only be allowed against a licence issued in that behalf. 9. It is the admitted case of the respondent that he did not have a specific licence as per the above amended provision for getting release of the goods in question and, hence, he requested the appellants to release the goods after fixing fine and penalty. That being so, he cannot compel the authorities to order immediate release of the goods. When the requisition of the respondent, dated 23-8-2007, was under consideration by the appellants,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....enable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the order of the learned single Judge unsustainable. 11. We find that the Writ Petition involved disputed issue regarding release of goods. The manner in which the learned single Judge has disposed of the writ petition shows that the basic requirement of indicating reasons was not kept in view and is a classic case of non-application of mind. This Court, in several cases, has indicated the necessity for recording reasons. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate....