2019 (10) TMI 338

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , the goods are below standard. Mr Bose, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the report, to which this court will refer later on in this judgment, made contemporaneously to the time of importation, said that the goods were fit for human consumption. He alleges that if the goods have deteriorated in quality, it is due to the laches and negligence on the part of the respondents, and that they should be made liable in damages for that. In the instant writ [WP No.9124(W) of 2015, Shri Bimal Kumar Modi v. Union of India & Ors.] the appellant makes an attempt to prove that the goods at the time of importation were fit for human consumption, and that the action of the respondents in seizing and confiscating the goods was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y opined that the goods were not fit for human consumption. On 10th July 2014, a second show-cause notice was issued by the Customs asking the appellant to show cause why the goods should not be re-exported or destroyed. On 12th November 2014, Referral Food Laboratory, Kolkata opined that the goods were fit for human consumption. Nevertheless on 13/15th March 2015, the Customs passed an order confiscating the goods. The appellant preferred the instant writ [WP No.9124(W) of 2015]. As an interim order on 15th May 2015 this court directed the goods to be tested by Central Food Laboratory, Kolkata upon the samples being drawn in the presence of the appellant's representative. The impugned adjudication order dated 13/15th March 2015 was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , the learned judge seemed to have taken the above observation of the Division Bench that the respondents had been "knocked out" to be a final finding on facts. The learned judge went one step ahead by pronouncing that the Customs had gained "a walk over" in the proceedings, proceeded to, inter alia, confirm the confiscation order and to dismiss the writ. With respect, the writ was hanging in a fine balance after disposal of the appeal on 8th April 2016. Most certainly, neither the appellant had been "knocked out" nor the Customs got "a walk over" in the proceedings. The main issues in the writ remained undecided. Therefore, we think it fit to set aside the impugned order dated 8th April 2016 and remand the writ to the Hon'ble first cou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X