TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hatsoever. 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. For the petitioner’s exercise of this present frivolity, the petitioner will immediately pay costs assessed at ₹ 50,000/- to the Customs authorities, which will abide by the final outcome of the proceedings that may be instituted against the petitioner upon the matters covered by the show-cause notice being decided by the Department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Customs authorities and there was no occasion for the Customs authorities to suspect that the goods were liable to confiscation. 7. The petitioner has obtained the release of the goods by securing the duty thereon by way of a bank guarantee. The petitioner represents that the bank guarantee is alive and that the bank guarantee will be kept alive till such time that the matter is decided finally. According to the petitioner, despite the several representations made by the petitioner to the respondent authorities, the respondent authorities have not replied to such representations and have proceeded to issue the impugned show-cause notice dated July 27, 2015. The petitioner claims that the goods were seized at a place which was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s. Arecanut Research Development Foundation, Mangalore is concerned, the petitioners have totally failed to bring on record any material to show that it is an accredited laboratory by a competent authority under the Act and Rules. Hence, no legal liability can flow from the report of such an institution. 9. There are two aspects to the observation in the judgment quoted above: the first being that the samples were illegally drawn; and, the second being that the Union failed to demonstrate that the institute where the samples were tested was accredited as an authorised testing house by any official document under the applicable statute. 10. The considerations in the present case are quite removed from the Patna judgment. The test ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound that the matter was not of such public importance that warranted special leave to be granted for the appeal to be considered by the highest court of the land; it does not imply that the Supreme Court endorsed that the Mangalore test-house was unauthorised for all purposes. 12. Show-cause notices are not challenged for the mere asking nor are such notices, which herald the initiation of any proceedings, treated lightly by Courts to be interfered with on the slightest pretext. High authorities instruct that unless a show-cause notice is demonstrated to be without jurisdiction or absurd on the face of it or palpably erroneous to the meanest mind, Courts must refrain from interfering therewith on the ground that it is always open to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
