9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication, GA No. 645 of 2016, is allowed as above, but without any order as to costs. 4. Since the Customs authorities are represented, WP No. 674 of 2015 is taken up for immediate consideration. 5. The petition is another attempt to short-circuit a process and obtain the release of the goods seized by the Customs authorities without replying to a show-cause notice issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. 6. According to the petitioner, betel nuts acquired in the State of Assam were transported by the petitioner to a railway siding in Kolkata. The goods were seized by the Customs authorities on the suspicion that they were liable to be confiscated. The petitioner says that betel nuts of Assamese origin transported from Assam to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iction Case No. 2185 of 2013, in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3784 of 2013 (Union of India vs. Salsar Transport Company). In that case, the Union applied for modification of an order passed on a pending petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Union relied on a report of Arecanut Research and Development Foundation, Mangalore to assert that the seized goods in that case were not fit for human consumption. The Single Bench observed, inter alia, as follows in the key paragraph of the judgment that has been placed: "From the materials placed on the record by learned counsels for the parties I am also of the view that the sample has not been drawn in accordance with the provisions of Section 47 and Rule 2.4 of the Food Safety a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been prepared by an agency accredited for such purpose. Here, the petitioner questions the propriety of a show-cause notice by citing the Patna judgment to show that the same test-house is an unauthorised testing centre, though the applicable statute is not the same. 11. Remarkably, the Division Bench judgment of the Patna case has been cited, where the Division Bench merely refused to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Single Bench in not modifying a subsisting interlocutory order. The petitioner herein also says that a special leave petition carried from the Division Bench order failed before the Supreme Court. It is elementary that the refusal by the Supreme Court to grant special leave to file an appeal is scarcely citable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est-house cannot be approached by the Customs authorities for any purpose whatsoever. The additional ground, equally laughable and fallacious, urged on behalf of the petitioner is that there is a rivalry between South Indian betel nut growers and the betel nut growers in the North-East such that any report of North-East betel nut sought from a test-house run by the cooperative of South- Indian betel nut growers would only be to the chagrin of the North-East betel nut growers. 13. For whatever the grounds that have been urged in course of the present petition may be worth, however, the petitioner is not prevented from repeating the same in response to the show-cause notice and taking any other grounds that may be available to him. The petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
