9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the office of the Regional Revenues Control Laboratory, New Delhi-110012, controlled by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India but it does not reflect that the said Chemical Examiner GR-2 was recognised in terms of Circular dated 23.02.2009. It is also not reflecting that the test report dated 31.12.2014 was ever supplied to the petitioner. Although, Mr. Harpreet Singh argued whether the information was given to the CHA of the petitioner, who intends to inform about the test report to the petitioner. It is appearing from the averments made in the petition that the CHA was informed about the test report but it is not reflecting that the test report dated 31.12.2014 was actually supplied to the petitioner to oppo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondents. The petitioner had deposited the applicable import duty and all the required documents through its CHA. The petitioner waited for the release of the goods on 26.12.2014 and on 27.12.2014 and thereafter, contacted the concerned department and officer through its CHA whereby he came to know that the process of releasing the goods was under process and the goods would be released within two or three days. 4. The petitioner, in the first week of January 2015, had asked the CHA to confirm the status of releasing of the said containers as it had taken much time. The petitioner was informed by the CHA that the respondent no.1 had taken the sample of the goods/rubber process oil for the live test, which were imported by the petitioner an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces of the present case in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondent to meet the ends of the justice. 7. The respondent no.1 filed the counter-affidavit wherein besides mentioning factual position as stated hereinabove, stated that the petitioner has mis-declared the goods by declaring the same to be the rubber process oil where as the imported goods were actually prohibited goods falling under the category of Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008. 8. The petitioner has imported the goods in contravention of the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. 9. The respondents have also filed counter-affidavit to the CM APPL. 51962/2019 wherein it is mentioned as under: The petitioner was well aware about ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the rubber process oil vide invoice no. EXP/INV/5774/14 from UAE which after being purchased came to India. The total net weight of the rubber process oil was 422.980 MT and gross weight of the goods imported along with drums was 4634800 MT. 11. A sample of the imported rubber process oil was taken and put to live test. The test report is reproduced as under: SNo.m-36/CUS/CRCL/2014/CL-3546-V-dt.23.12.2014 dated 31.12.2014 MB No. 7699865dated 15.12.2014 The sample is in the form of brown coloured vascious liquid having green fluorescence with following constants: Acidity (+by mass) = NIL Ash content(+mass) = NIL Sediment (+mass) =NIL Water content ((+mass) = NIL Flash Point (coc) Above 22 dc Density ( gm/mg) RH5C =1.0143 (one dot Zero, on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt no. 1 stated that the present petition is barred by the delay and latches as has been filed after a gap of five years. It is further argued that as per the test report 31.12.2014, the process rubber oil was found in contravention of IS 15078 : 2001. Mr. Harpreet Singh also stated that as per the detailed guidelines for these testing of the samples dated 18.07.2017, the re-testing has to be applied within a period of ten days from the receipt of communication of the test result. He also referred the paragraph G‟ of the petition wherein it is admitted by the petitioner that the result of the test report was communicated to the petitioner by CHA. 14. Mr. Agarwal, during the course of the arguments, referred Circular bearing no. 9/2009 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Laboratory, New Delhi-110012, controlled by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India but it does not reflect that the said Chemical Examiner GR-2 was recognised in terms of Circular dated 23.02.2009. It is also not reflecting that the test report dated 31.12.2014 was ever supplied to the petitioner. Although, Mr. Harpreet Singh argued whether the information was given to the CHA of the petitioner, who intends to inform about the test report to the petitioner. 16. It is appearing from the averments made in the petition that the CHA was informed about the test report but it is not reflecting that the test report dated 31.12.2014 was actually supplied to the petitioner to oppose the detention /unclearing of goods i. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
