9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 797X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of customs duty. 3. Acting on the intelligence, consignments imported by the appellant under 12 containers vide Bill of Entry No.2795056 dated 16.02.2021 was put on hold for examination and sampling. The imported goods were examined in presence of independent witnesses and examination proceedings were recorded in panchnama dated 19/20.02.2021. During examination, representative samples were drawn from each of the 12 containers. As goods in all the containers were identical and same (as declared), sample from one container was forwarded to CRCL for testing vide department's letter dated 01.03.2021. The sample was again drawn under panchnama dated 18.03.2021 from the same container from which sample was sent to CRCL and the same was forwarded to Society for Petroleum Laboratory (SFPL), Noida, U.P., a Government Laboratory registered under the Union Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas for testing of petroleum products vide department's letter dated 22.03.2021 with a request to test the samples for their conformity to the parameters/standards of Automotive Diesel Fuel. Both the laboratories i.e. CRCL & SFPL vide their reports dated 26.03.2021 and 01.04.2021, respectively reported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Counsel for the simple reason that test have been conducted by highly specialized government laboratories, i.e., CRCL and SFPL and no fault can be found on the test reports submitted by them. The test report dated 26.03.2021 by CRCL, the same reads as : " The sample meets the requirements of Automotive Diesel Fuel as per IS :1460 :2017. It is other than base oil." Similarly, the test report dated 1.04.2021 by SFPL also says : " Certified that the above sample conforms to I S: 1460: 2017 (latest version) specification for automated automotive, diesel fuel HSD in the critical test parameters as detailed in the test report and therefore is not considered to be a suspect case of adulteration" From the aforesaid two reports, it is clear that the impugned goods are 'Automotive Diesel Fuel' and conform to the standards of IS:1460:2017 and therefore the challenge that the samples have not been tested on all the 21 parameters is baseless and does not establish that the goods are not Automotive Diesel Fuel. The issue is squarely covered by the deicision of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Raj Kamal Industries - 2022 (2) TMI 264, where after detailed discussion, it was obse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RI) dated 26.03.2021, SFPL Test report no. FTL/ HSD/21/3 /76 dated 01.04.2021 bearing SFPL Code no. 21-86, in respect of testing of samples drawn from the containers imported under Bill of Entry No. 2795056 dt. 16.02.2021 filed by M/s Petro Lubes India he stated that he had been shown the aforementioned test reports in respect of testing of samples drawn from the containers imported under Bill of Entry No. 2795056 dt. 16.02.2021 filed by M/s Petro Lubes India. On seeing and understanding the same that the samples of imported goods found to be Automotive diesel fuel by the testing agency, he put his dated signature in token of his acceptance. He had nothing to comment on the results of these test reports". (Emphasis laid). Once the samples have been drawn under proper Panchnama and they have been tested by two recognized government laboratories as Automotive Diesel Fuel, which stands accepted and admitted by the appellant, there is no scope for any doubt or any further corroboration. The veracity of these test reports given by highly technical experts is not open to challenge on frivolous grounds of cross examination sought to be raised by the appellant and as rightly noted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted goods in terms of section 2 (33) of the Customs Act and therefore order of absolute confiscation in the present case is justified. I would like to refer to a recent decision of the Delhi High Court in Nidhi Kapoor Versus Union of India - 2023 SCC, online, Del 5099, where the learned Division Bench after referring to all the earlier decisions concluded that an infraction of a condition for import of goods would also fall within the ambit of section 2 (33) of the Act and therefore their redemption and release would become subject to the discretionary power of the adjudging officer and therefore did not find any illegality in the orders passed for absolute confiscation of the imported goods. Referring to the definition of "prohibited goods" in Section 2(33), the Supreme Court in Om Prakash Bhatia Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi analysed it as under: "9. From the aforesaid definition, it can be stated that (a) if there is any prohibition of import or export of goods under the Act or any other law for the time being in force, it would be considered to be prohibited goods; and (b) this would not include any such goods in respect of which the conditions, subject to which the good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
