Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Shri G.L. Rawal, learned counsel for the appellants stated that the Additional Collector had wrongly rejected their different submissions. They had contended that the samples were not drawn by the DRI officers in their presence. The Custom House Agents had been engaged by them only for the purpose of presenting the Shipping Bills for the export of the goods. Once the Shipping Bills were completed and the goods cleared for export and the goods stuffed in containers for despatch to Bombay, the work of the Custom House Agents was over and they were no more the agents of the appellants. That apart, samples had been drawn by the Customs Officers at the Inland Container Depot and sent for test to the department's laboratory and such Test Reports showed the percentage of acrylic contents as more than 75% which was the requirement under the Advance Licence issued to them. These test reports, the adjudicating authority refused to accept stating that the said Test reports did not contain any details to connect them with the consignment in question. Shri Rawal contended that if that was so, the Test Reports purportedly relating to the samples drawn by the DRI officers had also no indication that they were in respect of the samples drawn from their goods. The adjudicating authority had gone by the Test Reports received by the department but refused to accept the Test Reports issued by the departmental laboratory itself. Moreover the DRI Officers had drawn three samples each from the four containers, viz., twelve samples from 4 containers. When the Test Reports were communicated by them along with the show cause notice the appellants did not accept the Test result and wanted re-test with the other samples drawn. The re-test was not done. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Madhu Wool Spinning Mills v. Union of India reported in 1983 (14) E.L.T. 2200 (Bom.) wherein it was held that merely because the different analysis show different conclusions it is not permissible to select that conclusion which suits the authorities. They had submitted the Test Report of the exported goods carried out at the foreign buyer's end which was rejected by the Additional Collector who held that as the goods were exported to Hong Kong as per the Shipping Bill, the Test Report which was of a Testing Agency in South Korea could not be related to the appellants' goods. This ignored the fact that the buyer of the goods was a Korean importer to whom the goods were sent without transhipment. The Shipping Bill as well as the Bill of Lading showed the final destination of the goods as Busan, South Korea. The learned counsel concluded his arguments with the plea that the impugned order be set aside and the appeal allowed.