TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt on the basis of the affidavits to be filed and the exception to the report. The case in the writ application as a whole was also to be considered by the Hon ble first court upon exchange of affidavits. We do not find from the said order dated 13th January 2016 that any point taken in the writ application was closed by it. Impugned order set aside - the writ remanded to the Hon ble first court with a request to decide the same as early as possible, especially considering the fact that six years have passed since importation of the goods. - M.A.T.No.1602 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 21-8-2019 - Mr I.P. Mukerji And Mr Md. Nizamuddin, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Mainak Bose, Mr. Shokeel Akhter And Mr. Rishabh Karnan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mum import price of ₹ 110/- per kilogram could be permitted to be imported. This notification was obviously made to protect the domestic market. The appellant filed a Bill of Entry with the Customs on 2nd September 2013. Soon thereafter, samples of the said goods were drawn. The goods were got tested by an expert inspection agency, a government accredited laboratory. They found them to be fit for human consumption. The Customs did not release the goods. A writ application was filed by the appellant in this court [WP No.26409(W) of 2013] in which, on 9th October 2013, an interim order for provisional release of the goods was passed upon, inter alia, on the condition that the appellant would have to furni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal on 16th September 2015, a Division Bench of this court directed testing of the goods by the Referral Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad. On 6th October 2015 this laboratory reported that the samples did not conform to the prescribed standards. The final order in appeal passed by the Division Bench on 13th January 2016 is most relevant and important for the purposes of this writ. It observed that the Customs had been knocked out by the Ghaziabad report. The appellant was entitled to take an exception to this report. The writ was to be heard upon exchange of affidavits. In those circumstances, it is absolutely plain that the observation of the Division Bench that the respondents had been knocked out was to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
