TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 306
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r were searched by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence ("DRI") on 27-28th September, 2014 and a panchnama of the seized goods was prepared. The seized goods were handed over to the petitioner on superdari. A copy of the superdaginama has been enclosed with the petition. 3. Inter alia, for the purposes of the present order, what is relevant is that the Petitioner undertook to keep the seized goods handed over to him "intact and in the same condition as they are now" and produce them whenever called upon to do so by the competent authority of the Customs/ DRI. Annexure A to the panchnama which lists out the seized goods reads as under: S. No. Model No. Size Nos. Complete/ Incomplete 1 UA48H6400AK 48 inches 72 Complete 2 UA40H5100AR 40 inches 1 Complete 3 UA32H5100AR 32 inches 1 Complete 4 UA32H4100AR 32 inches 309 Complete 5 UA32FH4003R 32 inches 443 Complete 6 RF Cards for TVs - 102 Spare Parts 7 Power Supply Unit for TVs - 102 Spare Parts 8 One set of Speaker (Two pieces each set) - 102 Spare Parts 4. A Show Cause Notice ("SCN") was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for re-examination of the goods will be considered by the DRI and appropriates orders will be passed. When no such order was passed, the Petitioner filed a Contempt Case No. 614/2015 in which an order was passed on 5th August, 2015 noting, inter alia, that the Petitioner had no further clarification or documents to submit. The contempt petition was disposed of with a direction to the DRI to decide the Petitioner's application for re-examination of the goods within a period of two weeks without seeking any further clarification or documents. Subsequently, the DRI passed a detailed order dated 18/19th August 2015 rejecting the Petitioner's plea for re-examination of the seized goods for the following reasons: "....(i) Supply of fabricated documents by you in support of purchase of the aforesaid goods. (ii) Non-supply of documents showing sale of goods, which were imported by you in past. (iii) Failure to provide/ produce any documentary evidence/ details challenging the contents or sanctity of the panchnama...." 8. The Petitioner's request for provisional release of the goods was disposed of by the Principal Commissioner, Customs (Import) by an order dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tten by the AO in continuation of the letter dated 12th May, 2016 enclosing copy of the RUDs of the SCN that was received from the DRI on 2nd June, 2016. The Petitioner was now asked to submit his reply at the earliest. 11. On 7th June, 2016 the Petitioner again wrote to the AO stating that on 6th June, 2016 the Petitioner had been handed over incomplete RUDs 1 to 17 and not RUDs 18 and 19. The Petitioner pointed out that in the absence of the complete RUDs, it would not be possible for the Petitioner to submit a detailed and appropriate reply. A separate letter was addressed by the Petitioner on 7th June, 2016 to the DRI to the same effect. Another detailed representation was made by the counsel for the Petitioner to both the Customs and the DRI on 13th June, 2016 seeking copies of the RUDs 18 and 19 that had still not been supplied. On 17th June, 2016 the AO enclosed "rest of Replied (sic) Upon Documents (RUDs) i.e. RUD No. 18 & 19 of the subject Show Cause Notice received from DRI (DZU), New Delhi on 17.06.2016". 12. What, therefore, transpires is that it was only on 17th June, 2016 that the Petitioner was finally supplied "remaining two RUDs," i.e., RUDs 18 and 19. Howeve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication proceedings should be completed and the adjudication order should be passed without any further postponement with the full cooperation of the Petitioner. 16. Learned counsel for the Petitioner reiterated the plea for re- examination of the goods. This was vehemently opposed by Mr. Aggarwala, who pointed out that this prayer had been given up when the order dated 29th February, 2016 was passed by the Court in WP(C) No. 1775/2016. Mr Aggarwala also referred to an order dated 23rd January, 2013 passed by the Supreme Court in Crl. Appeal No. 1640/2010 (Thana Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics) to urge that the re-testing and re-sampling should ordinarily not be permitted unless there were exceptional circumstances. 17. In the first place, the Court notices that the observation in para 23 of the above order of the Supreme Court was made in a case arising under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. It was in the specific context of the re-testing and re-sampling of the seized consignments of drugs. Clearly the context in which the re- examination of goods is being sought in the present case, is very different. Secondly, the list of the seized goo....