TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (3) TMI 268
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tnership Act and deals in the export and import of various kinds of goods. Respondent No. 1 is the Union of India and respondents 2 to 4, the officers of the customs department. Petitioner is a transferee of REP licences issued under Appendix 17 of the Policy AM, 85-88. Purporting to exercise the right given to it under the transfer, petitioner imported goods described as a "mixture of odoriferous substances". The goods came in two consignments under bills of entry dated 5-6-1986 and 7-6-1986. An initial test of the goods was carried out by the Deputy Chief Chemist and he issued a report certifying that the sample taken was a mixture of odoriferous substances (OS), liquid in form and being free from alcohol. The goods were however held up o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fter a test they were found to be mixture of OS in liquid form. 3. Respondents have come forthwith two affidavits : First, at the stage of opposing the admission, and the second, filed as recently as 13-2-1987 Amongst other defences, it is urged that the petition is premature and intended to prerempt the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Customs Act. It is argued that but for the uncooperative attitude of the petitioner, an order in adjudication would have been passed much earlier. Petitioner is responsible for the delay that has occurred, and the pendency of the petition has acted as a deterrent to the authorities going ahead with the adjudication. To meet this submission, counsel for the petitioner advanced the following conten....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... I propose to sustain the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents, but also to partly allow the petition. My reasons for so holding are given below :- 5. Dr. Kantawala contends that an examination and the testing of the goods was carried out immediately after the import of the goods. A sample was taken, and after analysis, a report was submitted by the Deputy Chief Chemist. That report was in relation to a sample from the consignments figuring in this case and was clear. There was no reason for the respondents to dither after the receipt of this report. They had taken recourse to third degree methods to force a partner of the petitioner to compel him to give an incriminatory statement This was borne out by the retractio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fact and the point to be considered would be whether the writ Court should enter into the arena of facts having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case? Respondents were not content with the first report of the Deputy Chief Chemist in which the imported goods were described as a mixture of OS. That report may be correct or it may be that it was erroneous thus compelling recourse to a second opinion. The material collected by the respondents from the trade rivals of the petitioner may also be not worth much. However, this is appraisal of facts - an arena - which a writ Court would be reluctant to enter. As the record stands, there is the word against word of the rivals, and, in the absence of a detailed investigation it is not pos....