Page 156 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

42 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

2020 (372) E.L.T. 42 (P & H)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jaswant Singh and Girish Agnihotri, JJ.
RAGHAV WOOLLEN MILLS PVT. LTD.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
CWP No. 23588 & 23611 of 2016 (O&M), decided on 7-1-2020
Samples - Testing of samples - Imported synthetic waste - Sample
drawn post clearance/removal of good under provisional assessment, in terms
of Section 18 of Customs Act, 1962 - HELD : After release of imported goods
from Customs area, authorities not empowered, much less under Section 144
of Customs Act, 1962, to draw samples at subsequent stage from factory prem-
ises - Writ petitions deserve to be allowed. - In Section 144, it has been clearly pro-
vided that the proper officers may, on the entry or clearance of any goods or at any time
while such goods are being passed through Customs area, take samples of such goods for
examination thereof and once imported goods stand assessed to Customs duty and re-
moved/cleared from the custom area, no fresh samples of such imported goods can be re-
drawn from any other area. [paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]
Petition allowed
CASE CITED
Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector — 2002 (141) E.L.T. 593 (S.C.) — Relied on ........................... [Para 11]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate, for the
Petitioner.
Shri Sunish Bindlish, Advocate, for the Respondent.
[Order per : Girish Agnihotri, J.]. - This order shall dispose of two writ
petitions namely CWP-23588-2016 titled as M/s. Raghav Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd. v.
Union of India and Others and CWP-23611-2016 titled as M/s. PDG Wool Traders v.
Union of India and Others. The facts have been taken from CWP-23588-2016.
2. The petitioner namely M/s. Raghav Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd., having
its works/Office at Ludhiana, has one of the activities of importing different
kinds of acrylic waste from different countries including Germany/Canada.
3. The petitioner has inter alia prayed to issue writ of certiorari to quash
panchnama dated 11-8-2016 (Annexure P-3), whereby, respondent No. 2 has
seized imported stock of the petitioner. It has been further prayed that respond-
ent No. 2 be directed to un-conditionally release the aforesaid material of the pe-
titioner lying in their factory.
4. Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, by making
reference to pleadings in the writ petition, inter alia submits that in the year 2016,
as usual, the petitioner had imported synthetic waste during the period of few
months of the year 2016. It is contended that Bill of Entry (hereinafter referred as
B/E) was filed by the petitioner. The Customs Officers drew samples of the ma-
terial and had also sent the same for testing to their laboratory(s). It is positive
case of the petitioner that simultaneously, the Customs Officers permitted clear-
ance of goods under provisional assessment, in terms of Section 18 of the Cus-
toms Act, 1962 (hereinafter called as the ‘Act’). The petitioner has then given a
table in Para-7 of the writ petition to demonstrate that the petitioner was re-

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  204