2017 (9) TMI 1080 - AT - Customs

Docket order - reduction in quantum of penalty - validity of second order - Held that - although vide letter dated 19.10.2009, a fair order is said to have been placed before the Member (Judicial) by the SPS, we do not find any such order as part of the records. We are not able to say whether the said order was signed or approved by any Member. Thus, we conclude that the first docket order is not supported by any reasons and therefore is withdrawn - the appeal filed by appellant Shri Haren Choksey having been remanded, has to be heard on merits.

Summary

Issues:
1. Remand of the matter by the Hon'ble High Court for verification of reasons in the original order.
2. Verification of the first order for reasons and withdrawal.
3. Consideration of the need for rehearing the appeal on merits.

Analysis:
1. The Hon'ble High Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal to verify if the original order was supported by reasons and if it had been withdrawn. The Tribunal found that the first order was not supported by reasons and was thus withdrawn. This led to the need for a rehearing of the appeal on merits to resolve the peculiar situation and provide finality to the litigation.

2. The Tribunal reviewed the records and found that three separate appeals were partly allowed in a docket order, reducing penalties imposed on various parties. Subsequently, there were internal communications within the Tribunal regarding rehearing the matter, but no detailed order with reasons was issued. Despite claims of a fair order being placed before a Member, it was not found in the records, leading to the conclusion that the first docket order lacked reasons and was withdrawn.

3. Due to the absence of reasons in the original order and the remand by the High Court, the Tribunal decided to rehear the appeal on merits. The appellant requested more time to prepare for the argument on merits, leading to an adjournment for a final hearing. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of resolving the situation to bring closure to the litigation process and provide a fair opportunity for all parties involved.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the procedural intricacies, the significance of reasons in legal orders, and the Tribunal's commitment to ensuring a just and thorough review of the case before reaching a final decision.