New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (8) TMI 638 - Calcutta High Court

2016 (8) TMI 638 - Calcutta High Court - 2016 (338) E.L.T. 200 (Cal.) - Movement of betel nuts - the goods were seized by the Customs authorities on the suspicion that they were liable to be confiscated - Held that:- Nothing is brought to show that the Customs authorities could not have seized the goods from wherever they were seized in Kolkata or that the institute whereat the goods were tested could not have been approached for such purpose. No law or any official document has been produced ei .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

operative of South- Indian betel nut growers would only be to the chagrin of the North-East betel nut growers. - For the petitionerís 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 as expeditiously as possible. - Decided ag .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

28, 2016 is recalled and WP No. 674 of 2015 is restored to the file. 3. The restoration application, 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 A .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uspect 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 represen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2 referred to therein. 8. The petitioner also claims that the entire basis of the show-cause notice is founded on a report of a private testing house in Mangalore which has rendered an opinion that the seized goods are not of Indian origin. The petitioner relies on a Single Bench judgment of the Patna High Court in Miscellaneous Jurisdiction 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 m .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

wn in accordance with the provisions of Section 47 and Rule 2.4 of the Food Safety and Standards Act and Rules. So far as the reliance on the report by M/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 ob .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nuts have been seized on the ground that they were liable to confiscation under the Customs Act. Secondly, in the Patna Case, the opinion rendered by the test-house was that the betel nuts were not fit for human consumption; here, the Customs authorities sought the view of the test-house whether the goods were of Indian origin and it is the opinion of the test-house that the goods are of foreign origin. Most importantly, the Union had applied to have the status quo subsisting on the basis of an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion 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 authority or a precedent. The Supreme Court may merely have found that the matter was not of such public importance that warranted special leave to be granted for the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ce 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 noticee to respond to such notice and urge all grounds to discredit the allegations contained in the show-cause notice or the suspicions harboured against the noticee by the issuing authority. The petitioner has come on very flimsy grounds to challenge the show-cause notice. Nothing is brought to show that the Customs authorities could not have seized the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version