Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5.2. Evidently, on 05.10.2016, samples were drawn by respondent No.2, which were sent for testing to the Central Leather Research Institute (in short "CLRI").
5.3. Consequent thereto, on 07.10.2016, CLRI submitted its report, which was indicative of the fact that the samples, satisfied the norms stipulated under the public notice.
5.4. It appears that respondent No.3 was not satisfied with the report of CLRI, as it had received intelligence inputs which propelled him to doubt the veracity of the outcome indicated in the CLRI report.
5.8. Admittedly, the said representation was not, immediately, attended to and, instead, a second set of samples was drawn by respondent No.3, on 09.11.2016. These samples were also sent by respondent No.3, for testing to CLRI.
6. The petitioners, having become aware of this development, apparently, on 11.11.2016, made a request to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, SIIB, Customs House, Chennai, that they be supplied the test report generated by CLRI; which, incidentally, would have been the second test report.

9.8. More importantly, learned counsel says that the respondents to date have not supplied the petitioners with a copy of the second report said to have been generated by CLRI, despite a request having been made in that behalf.

10. On the other hand, Mr.Sundar, who appears for the respondents, has resisted the variation of the condition contained in clause (i) of paragraph 6 of the impugned order.

10.1. Quite, inexplicably though, while resisting variation of the aforementioned condition, learned counsel makes a submission that the impugned order being an internal communication between respondent No.3 and respondent No.2 cannot be relied upon by the petitioners in the present proceedings.

17.2. Therefore, the objection of Mr.Sundar, based on the contents of the Facility Circular, is rejected.

18. As would be evident from the facts noted above, there is, even according to the respondents, one report of CLRI, which is in favour of the petitioners. The second report, which has been, apparently, generated, wherein, CLRI has, purportedly, come to the conclusion that the subject goods are not finished leather, has not been placed on record. Furthermore, this report has not, apparently, been handed over to the petitioners.