9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t he ought not to have examined the metal content in the samples as the general parameters do not provide for the same - this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition and the same is dismissed as not maintainable. - W.P.No.19950 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 11-9-2017 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. S. Murugappan For the Respondents : Mr.K.Ravi ORDER Heard Mr.S.Murugappan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Ravi, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondent. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved over the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, being the order-in-original dated 08.06.2017. By the impugned order the respondent has held that the subject goods namely the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not issue a certificate in his individual capacity but as an officer in a Government lab, which could be either Primary lab or Referral lab. Therefore, the plea raised by the petitioner that the officer should be made available for cross examination is not tenable. 6. Secondly, the concerned officer has not been impleaded as a party respondent in this writ petition or for that matter, the primary lab or the referral lab or the authorities under the Food Safety and Standards Act have not been arrayed as respondents. Therefore, both the pleas raised by the petitioner has to necessarily fail. 7. An identical case came up for consideration before this Court in the case of M/s.Parry Enterprises India Limited Vs. The Authorised Officer, Foo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, merely because of non-mentioning of the Aluminium as one of the metal contaminant cannot be a reason to vitiate the impugned test report. Thus the petitioner has not made out any case for interference. 8. Admittedly, the report filed by the Central Food Laboratory is a technical report. Therefore, if the petitioner seeks to dispute the technical report, it is for him to establish on the fact that the report is contrary to the factual position. However, this exercise cannot be done in a writ petition. 9. Thus, for the above reasons this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition and the same is dismissed as not maintainable. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the appeal remedy provided under the Act. If ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
