Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2015 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 827 - HC - CustomsRe-Testing of Sample Calcite Powder Petitioner being dissatisfied with testing of samples done by respondent no.5 i.e. Central Revenue Control Laboratory, prays for testing of samples of Calcite Powder be done at any laboratory other than respondent no.5 Held that - Without entering into issue qua retesting being permissible under law or not, interest of substantial justice would be served by requiring respondent no.2 to take decision on applications made by petitioner without being influenced by any of observations made by parties Application of petitioner to be decided by respondent no.2 strictly in accordance with provisions applicable Petition disposed of Decided in favour of Petitioner.
Issues:
1. Request for re-testing of samples of "Calcite Powder" by a laboratory other than the Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Delhi. Analysis: The judgment delivered by the High Court of Allahabad addressed the issue of re-testing of samples of "Calcite Powder" requested by the petitioner. The petitioner sought to have the samples tested by a laboratory other than the Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Delhi. The court noted the dissatisfaction expressed by the petitioner regarding the testing conducted by the Central Revenue Control Laboratory. The department's counsel highlighted that re-testing could only be permitted if allowed by law and that the decision to entertain such an application for re-testing rested with the concerned authority. The court refrained from delving into the legality of re-testing at that stage but emphasized that the interest of substantial justice required the respondent no.2 to decide on the petitioner's application without being influenced by any prior observations. The court ordered the respondent no.2 to consider and decide on the petitioner's application within a specified timeframe, following the applicable provisions. It was directed that all consequential actions be taken accordingly. In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition with the aforementioned directions and observations, emphasizing the need for a fair consideration of the petitioner's request for re-testing of the samples of "Calcite Powder" by a different laboratory.
|