2007 (5) TMI 117

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot under sub-heading 11. Correspondences were exchanged between the Customs Authority and the said respondent with regard to the nature of production of the tar so imported by the said respondent. The said respondent also produced materials with regard to the manufacturing process to some extent. They, however, could not get such process in detail as the manufacturer refused to divulge the same. The Customs Authority was not satisfied with the explanation given by the importer that gave rise to the present litigation. 2. The learned Single Judge by His Lordship's judgment and order dated September 7, 1994 disposed of the writ petition. 3. Before His Lordship it was contended on behalf of the said respondent that since the subject cons....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... should have allowed the Customs Authorities to prove their contention before the adjudicating authority. 8. Mr. Abhijit Chatterjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent contended that there was not an iota of evidence to support the contention of the Customs Authorities that the subject consignments could come within the mischief of sub-heading 19. Mr. Chatterjee also contended that the primary onus was upon the Customs Authority to show that they were prima facie satisfied on the basis of the materials received by them as a result of investigation. Customs miserably failed to produce any such material. Hence, it would be futile to allow the show cause proceeding to be proceeded with and the learned Judge rightly allow th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tice the authority should have investigated into the matter and after prima facie satisfaction the authority should have issued the show cause notice. We have perused the show cause notice. From the tenure of the show cause notice it appears that the Customs Authority put the burden on the respondent that they would have to show that the subject consignment was not manufactured by cut back method to come out of the mischief of subheading 19. This is not the right approach. We are in full agreement with His Lordship on this score. 11. The respondents initially tried to explain by furnishing materials lying in their possession collected from their overseas exporter. If someone buys a product the purchaser is entitled to know the contents o....