9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s metric tones of non-alloy steel slabs at Euro 280 (CIF), per metric tone and sold on High Sea sale basis by M/s.State Trading Corporation, New Delhi. The petitioner sought for clearance of the goods, availing the benefits, as per the Customs Notification No.21/2002, Sl.No.190B, under the concessional rate of basic customs duty, at 5%. The goods covered under the first Bill of Entry No.692343, dated 1.10.2004, had been cleared, availing the benefit of the said notification. However, in respect of the goods covered under the Bill of Entry No.695193, dated 7.10.2004, clearance had not been made, as the goods had been subjected to examination and drawal of samples, at the instance of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 22.7.2005. Therefore, Special Leave Petitions, in S.L.P.Nos.12359 to 12362 of 2005, had been filed before the Supreme Court. 4. The Supreme Court, while disposing of the Special Leave Petitions, had directed the petitioner to approach the High Court, by bringing the notification, dated 21.5.1955, issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs to its notice. The notification permits re-testing of samples, in the event of the assessee being dissatisfied, with the samples already taken by the Department. Based on the said order of the Apex Court, the First Bench of this Court had passed an order, dated 1.12.2006, in W.A.M.P.Nos.1822 to 1825 of 2006, in Writ Appeal Nos.832 to 835 of 2005. 5. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent does not have the authority or power to order re-testing of the cargo detained by the authorities of the Customs Department, based on the reason that the report of the earlier test done, in respect of the said goods, is in favour of the petitioner. 8. It had been further stated that the testing of the samples taken from the consignment, imported by the petitioner, was based on the order of the First Bench of this Court, dated 1.12.2006, in W.A.M.P.Nos.1822 to 1825 of 2006, in Writ Appeal Nos.832 to 835 of 2005. 9. It had been further stated that there is no provision in law, which empowers the authorities concerned to subject the detained goods for re-testing. Further, if the re-testing is done, in respect of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court is of the considered view that the decision of the authorities of the Customs Department for re-testing of the detained goods, imported by the petitioner is inappropriate and unsustainable in the eye of law. 14. It is noted that, when the First Bench of this Court, by its order, dated 1.12.2006, in W.A.M.P.Nos.1822 to 1825 of 2006, in Writ Appeal Nos.832 to 835 of 2005, had passed an order directing the authorities of the Customs Department to do re-testing of the goods in question and when a report, dated 21.4.2009, had also been filed, it would not be open to the respondents to order re-testing of the said goods, once again, especially, after a lapse of a number of years. 15. Further, the only reason shown by the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
