TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 604X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e answered by the Authority concerned whether the first Report should be ignored or discounted - petition is accordingly disposed of - 10418 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 3-9-2009 - Sanjiv Khanna, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Rishi Manchanda, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Ms. Maneesha Dhir, Ms. Preeti Dalal, S/Shri K.P.S. Kohli and Mukesh Anand, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Order]. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents to take instructions and, if required, file a short reply. On 11th August, 2009, counsel for the respondents prayed some more time to obtain instructions in terms of order dated 27th July, 2009 and the matter was adjourned to 19th August, 2009. On the said date again time was taken to obtain instructions. Counsel appearing for the Commissioner of Customs had stated as recorded in the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Central Food Laboratory. There appears to be no justification for vesting absolute finality to the Report of the CFL only because it pertains to an import. 6. x x x x x 7. Counsel for the CFL have not been able to cite any provision of law which prohibits the carrying out of second testing of a food sample, especially where the Authority who has forwarded the first sample ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld be allowed an opportunity to challenge the veracity of a finding. In my opinion, therefore, since there is no statutory prohibition from carrying out a second testing, there is no justification in deducing that this not permitted. It has been contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the audi alteram partem rule has been violated in that the Petitioners were not informed or given an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gnored or discounted." 6. The said judgment has been followed in W.P.(C) Nos. 12574-75/2006 titled Global Corporation Limited v. Commissioner of Customs decided on 19th October, 2006 and W.P.(C) No. 10942/2009 titled Kuldeep Kundlia v. Commissioner of Customs Another. 7. In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that the respondents should sent the sample to another Central Food L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|