9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (2) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a 'Let Export Order' was passed by the Customs authorities. However, two days later, the 'Let Export Order' and the shipping bills were seized and the petitioner was informed that the goods cannot be exported. On 12th July, 1984, the second respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner purporting to be under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and this was served on the petitioner on 14th July 1984. It was stated therein that as per technical opinion obtained on the basis of an examination of the samples, the consignment was found to consist of Vinca Rosea and Rauwolfia serpentina roots (a banned item) and the petitioner was called upon to show cause why the consignment should not be confiscated under Section 113(d) of the Act for contravention of Section 3 of the Import and Export Control Act, 1947, read with clause (1) of the Export Control Order. A notice to show cause as to why a personal penalty should not be imposed under Section 114(1) of the Act was also given to the petitioner. Thereafter, on 27th July 1984, before the petitioner could send a reply within the time mentioned in the notice, an addendum was served upon the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 27th July, 1984, and the adjudication proceedings pursuant thereto and quash the same and directing the respondents to release the goods seized under the order of the second respondent dated 10th August, 1984. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, though several grounds had been raised by the petitioner, in the course of the arguments before this Court, the petitioner confined its attack on the impugned order to only one ground, namely, that the alleged violation committed by the petitioner in attempting to export goods contrary to the prohibition against export was without any basis or foundation, as the question whether the goods were prohibited or not is a matter on which the respondents should have entertained a reasonable belief that it was so at the time of seizure and such belief should have been present at the time of the issue of the show cause notice and further that during the course of adjudication, the proper officer must reach a conclusion that the goods were prohibited goods. The petitioner also maintained that the consignment did not contain any banned item and in order to ascertain this, requested the Court to draw samples, from the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contained Rauwolfia serpentina, a banned item, along with Vinca Rosea, a permitted item. In order to determine what the consignment contained, the samples from the consignment were sent for purposes of examination, analysis and identification to the Ayurveda Research Institute, Trivandrurn-12. On 23rd July, 1984, the Professor of Pharmacognosy had addressed a letter to the second respondent herein after a physical examination of the sample. In that letter, the Professor of Pharmacognosy has purported to identify from the anatomical features roots of Vinca Rosea and Rauwolfia serpentina and has stated that thin stems with prominent nodes are that of Vinca Rosea and the slightly thicker ones with inconspicuous nodes are that of Rauwolfia serpentina. The letter winds up by saying that an alcoholic extract of the contents of the two plants which are very different can reveal more details, but that process would take about 7 to 9 days and that only thereafter a detailed report can be forwarded. Subsequently, on 19th September, 1984, the Professor of Pharmacognosy, Ayurveda Research Institute, Trivandrum had addressed another letter to the second respondent. Therein, it has been stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erpentina, which she had asserted in her letter dated 23rd July, 1984, and stated in her letter dated19th September, 1984, that roots of Rauwolfia canescens were present. In both the letters dated23rd July, 1984 and 19th September, 1984, it has not been stated that on what scientific investigation and basis, the identification had been made. This assumes importance because in the report dated 2nd January, 1985 submitted by the Central Research Institute for Siddha, Arumbakkam, Madras-106, the scientific investigation to which the samples were subjected to and finally identified have been clearly set out and the identification had been confirmed on a consideration of the Thin Layer Chromotographic pattern. The report says that stems and not roots of Rauwolfia canescens were found in the materials sent for identification. In my view, the report dated 2nd January, 1985, sent by the Central Research Institute for Siddha, Arumbakkam, Madras-106, sets out the scientific data on the basis of which the identification had been done and arrived at and, therefore, that report deserves to be accepted in preference to the conclusions communicated in the letters dated 23rd July, 1984 and 19th Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and stems of Rauwolfia canescens. 7. The learned Counsel for the respondents referred to page 77, Schedule I of the Import and Export Policy. April 1984 to March 1985, Volume II, to contend that Rauwolfia canescens would be a banned item. It is difficult to accept the contention, for, it is seen that the export of roots and seeds of Rauwolfia canescens is not normally allowed. Stems of Rauwolfia canescens is not included under items not normally allowed to be exported. Even as regards the roots and seeds of Rauwolfia canescens, a note is added to the effect that the regulation may be relaxed and export permitted on obtaining certificates from certain officers to the effect that the material is plantation of nursery origin. When stems of Rauwolfia canescens do not find a place among items not normally allowed to be exported, there is no question of relaxing the regulations regarding the export of that item, namely, the stems of Rauwolfia canesens. Accepting the report dated 2nd January, 1985, submitted by the Central Research Institute for Siddha, Arumbakkam, Madras-106, which has clearly set out the basis for the identification of the plants in the consignment, in preference to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
