Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"9. Not related with testing.

10. No such test is recommended in Indian Standard."

3. Another test report was also prepared by the same chemical examiner i.e. Sh. S.K. Singh on same date i.e. on 07.05.2014 wherein he preferred to cover only first 05 tests while the rest 05 tests were left and were not even recorded in his report After having knowledge of the aforesaid test reports dated 07.05.2014, one of the importers as ICD-Loni moved an application before the CRCL, New Delhi under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the RTI Act, 2005) seeking information regarding the Indian Standard used by CRCL to test calcite powder/natural calcium carbonate. The aforesaid application was disposed of by the same chemical examiner Mr. S.K. Singh by stating that no Indian Standard Method was available to test calcite powder/natural calcium carbonate. In the meantime, the appellant managed to get the copies of the information from one of their business colleagues of similar commodity at ICD-Loni, under the RTI Act from the customs authorities at Chennai and Nhava Sheva, Maharashtra, who by their orders dated 13.01.2014, 16.01.2014, 24.06.2014 and 26.06.2014 held that X-Ray Diffraction, Atomic Absorption Spectrometry (AAS) tests etc. have to be carried out of differentiating between Natural Calcium Carbonate (Calcite Powder), Synthetic (Coated) Calcium Carbonate & Precipitated Calcium carbonate. The appellant informed that in a reply under RTI Act, given to one of appellant business colleague where in they sought information whether CRCL Delhi posses the X-Ray Diffraction (XRD) machine for testing samples of Calcite Powder/Natural Calcium Carbonate. The CRCL vide their reply dated 19.08.2014 stated that, CRCL do not posses X-Ray Diffraction facility. Meanwhile, on the insistence of the Customs Authorities at ICD, Loni, the appellant had no option but to get their goods cleared after depositing Bank Guarantee of duty at higher rates i.e. the rates applicable to "Precipitated Calcium Carbonate" falling under chapter 28 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The appellant has requested the Customs Authorities many a times for retesting the samples in any other NABL Lab, but the customs authority at ICD-Loni had not taken any action for sending the samples to any other laboratory equipped to test the samples as required by the test memo. In a similar matter, some other Importers filed a Writ Petition against the reports of CRCL for similar goods in the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad and demanded the retesting of their samples at any NABL accredited Lab. The Hon'ble Court decided the matter and directed the Commissioner ICD-Loni to settle the issue of retesting within four weeks time. However, Commissioner ICD-Loni again turned down the request of retesting the samples of such Importers on the ground that "pick and choose facility cannot be granted to the Importers‟. All importers again preferred an appeal before Hon'ble Allahabad High Court against the order of the Commissioner, ICD-Loni. The Hon'ble Court, this time, referred the matter to CESTAT to decide the issue of retesting the samples by any Lab other than CRCL. Consequently, the CESTAT, New Delhi has decided a case of M/s Rathi Enterprises, 3451-B, Main Hansapuri Road, Delhi vide its Final Order No. A/50137/2015-SM(BR) dated 19.01.2015. In the instant case, the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Noida vide its Order-in-Original No.02/CUS/Commr./Noida/2014-15 dated 07.11.2014 had rejected the request of the party to allow them to get their samples tested in any laboratory other than CRCL. The CESTAT vide aforesaid order has held that the samples be retested from any laboratory other than CRCL and, thereafter, the adjudicating authority should pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.