CHANDNA IMPEX PVT. LIMITED versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI

Citation: [2011] 8 S.C.R. 1102 · Decided: 06-07-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2011] 8 S.C.R. 1102 
CHANDNA IMPEX PVT. LIMITED 
V. 
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI 
(Civil Appeal No. 1383 of 2010) 
JULY 06, 2011 
[D.K. JAIN AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] 
Customs Act, 1962 - s.130 - Statutory appeal against 
the order of Customs Appellate Tribunal - Held: While 
C dealing with an appeal under s. 130, the High Court must 
examine each question formulated in the appeal with 
reference to the material taken into consideration by the 
.· Tribunal in support of its finding thereon and give its reasons 
for holding that question is not a substantial question of Jaw. 
D 
The appellant, a body corporate, are importers of 
certain goods viz. plywood, MDF laminated boards and 
veneers etc. It was alleged that certain goods imported 
by the appellant had been under-valued. A show cause 
E notice was issued to the appellant by the Directorate of 
Revenue Intelligence (ORI) under Section 124 of the 
Customs Act, 1962. Subsequently, the Commissioner of 
Customs (Import & General), ordered the confiscation of 
goods under Section 111 of the Act; confirmed demand 
under Section 28AB of the Act, and also levied a penalty 
F under Section 114A of the Act on the appellant. 
The appellant preferred an appeal to the Customs 
Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which was 
dismissed. Thereafter the appellant filed an appeal under 
G Section 130 of the Act before the High Court raising as 
many as 7 questions, stated to be substantial questions 
of law, for the opinion of the High Court. However, the 
High Court dismissed the appeal by a short order holding 
that no substantial question of law arose from the order 
H 
1102 
CHANDNA IMPEX PVT. LIMITED v. COMMISSIONER1103 · -"·. 
OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI 
of the Appellate Tribunal, for its consideration. 
In the instant appeal filed by appellant under Section 
130-E of the Act, the appellant, while assailing the order 
·passed by the High Court, urged that the High Court had 
committed a manifest error of law in dismissing the 
Statutory appeal in /imine by a non-speaking order and 
therefore, the case deserves to be remitted back to the 
High Court for decision on merits of the questions 
proposed in the appeal. The appellant contended that all 
A 
B 
the questions, raised by the appellant in their appeal were 
C 
substantial questions of law and therefore, the High 
Court ought to have examined each of the questions so 
framed instead of dismissing the appeal by a cryptic 
order, by merely observing that the Tribunal had dealt 
with each and every argument urged on behalf of the 
appellant and that they were in agreement with the 
D 
reasons recorded by the Tribunal. Relying on a recent 
decision of this Court in Commissioner of Customs v. 
Sayed Ali, the appellant asserted that in any event one of · 
the questions: "whether the Addi. Director General in ORI 
is "proper officer" within the meaning of section 28 of the 
E 
Act" is a substantial question of law, which should have 
been examined by the High Court. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1.1. There is some merit in the submission of 
F 
the appellant that while dealing with an appeal under 
Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, the High Court 
should have examined each question formulated in the 
·appeal with reference to the material taken into 
consideration by the Tribunal in support of its finding 
G 
thereon and given its reasons for holding that the 
question is not a substantial question of law. Every 
litigant, who approaches the court for_ relief is entitled to 
know the reason for acceptance or rejection of his prayer, 
H 
1104 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2011] 8 S.C.R. 
A particularly when either of the parties to the lis has a right 
of further appeal. Unless the litigant is made aware of the 
reasons which weighed with the court in denying him the 
relief prayed for, the remedy of appeal will not be 
meaningful. It is that reasoning, which can be subjected 
B to examination at the higher forums. [Para 8) [1110-A-D] 
1.2. It was expected of the High Court to record some 
reason, at least briefly, in support of its opinion that the 
order of the Tribunal did not give rise to any substantial 
question of law. In this behalf, the language of Section 
C 130 of the Act is also significant. It contemplates that on 
filing of an appeal under the said Section either by the 
Commissioner of Customs or the other party aggrieved, 
the High Court has to record its satisfaction as to whether 
or not 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.