TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nments under sub-heading 11 for a long time. In 1988 the authority objected as according to them the bill of entry was not properly filled up as the subject consignment should be under sub-heading 19 and not under sub-heading 11. Correspondences were exchanged between the Customs Authority and the said respondent with regard to the nature of production of the tar so imported by the said respondent. The said respondent also produced materials with regard to the manufacturing process to some extent. They, however, could not get such process in detail as the manufacturer refused to divulge the same. The Customs Authority was not satisfied with the explanation given by the importer that gave rise to the present litigation. 2. The learned Si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Saraf, learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated what was submitted before the learned Single Judge on behalf of the Customs Authority. In addition Mr. Saraf contended that the learned Single Judge should have allowed the Customs Authorities to prove their contention before the adjudicating authority. 8. Mr. Abhijit Chatterjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent contended that there was not an iota of evidence to support the contention of the Customs Authorities that the subject consignments could come within the mischief of sub-heading 19. Mr. Chatterjee also contended that the primary onus was upon the Customs Authority to show that they were prima facie satisfied on the basis of the materials received b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ory authorities to question the conduct of a party within the framework of the said statute. Such statutory authority is also under obligation to satisfy itself that there are reasons for questioning such conduct. Before issuance of show cause notice the authority should have investigated into the matter and after prima facie satisfaction the authority should have issued the show cause notice. We have perused the show cause notice. From the tenure of the show cause notice it appears that the Customs Authority put the burden on the respondent that they would have to show that the subject consignment was not manufactured by cut back method to come out of the mischief of subheading 19. This is not the right approach. We are in full agreement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
