9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (4) TMI 189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y exported by them. For the balance quantity of 50,000 Kgs. they sent 1,000 bales of 50 Kgs. each to Inland Container Depot (ICD), New Delhi on 17-5-1989 where 6 samples were drawn at random by the proper officer of Customs who passed the order permitting the clearance for export. The bales were stuffed into 5 containers and one container was loaded in the train for transport to Bombay for export and the balance from containers remained in the ICD awaiting transport to Bombay. On 24-5-1979 the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence officials seized the containers and drew 12 samples. Thereafter, on 4-7-1989 the containers were provisionally released on the condition that the appellant should furnish Bank Guarantee for 25% of the FOB value. Sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een drawn by the Customs Officers at the Inland Container Depot and sent for test to the department s laboratory and such Test Reports showed the percentage of acrylic contents as more than 75% which was the requirement under the Advance Licence issued to them. These test reports, the adjudicating authority refused to accept stating that the said Test reports did not contain any details to connect them with the consignment in question. Shri Rawal contended that if that was so, the Test Reports purportedly relating to the samples drawn by the DRI officers had also no indication that they were in respect of the samples drawn from their goods. The adjudicating authority had gone by the Test Reports received by the department but refused to acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . He contended that the DRI Officers who had information about the appellants selling the imported material were not bound to accept the action of the ICD Officers who had passed the goods for export. The Test Report of Revenue Laboratory relied upon by the appellants related to six samples. The same has been rejected by the Additional Collector in the absence of a clear indication that these related to the goods exported by the appellants. The goods were packed in four containers and it was not clear how six samples were drawn for goods packed in 4 containers. He pleaded that the appeal be dismissed. 4. We have considered the submissions. We have perused the record. We find that the contention in the appeal is that samples were drawn by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... months and send the report only along with the show cause notice. If the goods had been found to contain less than the required percentage of acrylic material the provisional realease should not have been allowed. It would have been possible to draw representative samples of the material beyond any doubt so that the test result could not be called into question. What has happened actually is that the officers drew 12 samples from 4 containers and sent 4 samples and received the Test Reports and applied them for the contents of 5 containers including the one which had already been despatched and was not available for examination and drawing of samples. When the test report was questioned by the appellants the other samples were not sent for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
