TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... try No. 470212, dated 1-12-2005 in the name of M/s. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Pvt. Ltd. which has been seized vide panchnama dated 3-11-2006 from the godown of M/s. Vipul Overseas in the presence of the petitioner and send the same for retesting to any recognized laboratory. (ii) to direct the respondent to release the goods on provisional basis to the petitioners pending investigation. (iii) to pass such other or further order/s which this Hon ble Court may deem fit and proper. 3. The institution of the writ petition arises in the background of the following facts : 4. The petitioner before the Court had imported goods in question i.e. light weight coated paper (hereinafter referred to in short as LWC paper) through an inden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is an undisputed fact that a copy of that said report was supplied to the petitioner. 9. Aggrieved by the result contained in the report dated 4-12-2006, the petitioner by a letter dated 21-12-2006 made a request to Respondent No. 1 to draw fresh samples. However, in the meanwhile on 26-12-2006 a show cause notice was issued by Respondent No. 1. Undetered the Petitioner despatched another letter dated 27-3-2007 whereby it reiterated its request for drawing fresh samples. The only difference being that this time the request was made to the 2nd Respondent i.e. the Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi. 10. The petitioner admittedly got no response to both letters referred to above. 11. The petitioner feeling constrain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5% only apart from cess, educational cess, etc. In the event the petitioner is not in a position to demonstrate that the paper imported is LWC paper it would have to pay Customs duty @ 40% which would include basic Customs duty @ 24% and CVD @ 16%. 15. I am also informed by Mr. Satish Aggarwal, counsel for Respondent No. 1 that the adjudication has already commenced in the matter; even though it is not concluded. 16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, particularly, in view of the fact that the Central Pulp and Paper Research Institute has given two diametrically opposite reports dated 4-12-2006 and 11-7-2007 it would perhaps serve interests of both the parties if in accordance with the request made by the petitioner on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t samples can be sent for re-testing then a report of the tested samples may be supplied to the petitioner. 19. At this stage, Mr. Pradeep Jain submits that as and when samples are sent for testing the writ petitioner be given an opportunity to be present. According to me, this is prejudging the issue. The Commissioner of Customs would first have to decide whether or not to accede to the request contained in the letter dated 27-3-2007. I have no doubt once the Commissioner of Customs comes to a conclusion either way, he will follow the principles of natural justice in giving an opportunity to the petitioner to be present, if it is so desire, as and when samples are sent to an expert for testing. 20. As far as the second prayer in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
