Page 157 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] RAGHAV WOOLLEN MILLS PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 43
quired to furnish bond along with Bank Guarantee (for short “B/G”). For ready
reference, table is reproduced hereinunder :-

Sr. B/E No. & Quantity Rate Rate Description B/G
No. Date declared Assessed
(per kg) (Per kg)
1. 5030221, dated 20984 0.85 0.85 Synthetic 21-4-2016
25-4-2016 (EUR) Waste (Acrylic
Soft Wate)
2. 4863068, dated 22595 0.85 0.85 Synthetic 7-4-2016
1-4-2016 (EUR) Waste (Acrylic
Soft Wate)
3. 4560424, dated 22519 0.88 0.88 Synthetic 11-3-2016
14-3-2016 (EUR) Waste (Acrylic
Soft Wate)
4. 4027914, dated 15835 0.65 1.00 Dyed Acrylic 6-1-2016
25-1-2016 (USD) Soft Waste
5. 441849, dated 15429 0.65 0.90 Dyed Acrylic 24-2-2016
29-2-2016 (USD) Soft Waste

5. It is then the case of the petitioner that the respondents have illegally
on 11-8-2016 seized the complete record of the petitioner, inter alia qua the afore-
said B/E. The petitioner is only having details of import and a copy of Bank
Guarantee, which the petitioner has attached as Annexures P-1 & P-2, which
were returned after framing final assessment under Section 18 of the Act and
cancellation of Bond. The petitioner has made some pleadings regarding the de-
scription of goods as synthetic waste (acrylic soft waste) and also as died acrylic
soft waste. However, for the sake of brevity, without making detailed reference
to the said pleading, it is deemed appropriate to notice that Customs authorities,
after the receipt of positive report from the laboratory, cancelled the Bond and
returned the bank guarantee, but has never supplied copy of the Test Report
(which vindicated the declaration of description of goods). The declared value
was USD 0.65 per kg, whereas, the respondent provisionally and thereafter final-
ly assessed USD 1.00 per kg in case of one Bill of Entry and USD 0.90 per kg, in
case of another Bill of Entry.
The petitioner further submits that on 11-8-2016, the staff of Directorate
of Revenue Intelligence, searched office and business premises of the petitioner
and even the residence of Director of the petitioner. The alleged reason of search
as informed by the authorities was that the petitioner has misdeclared descrip-
tion and value of imported goods at the time of filing aforesaid Bills of Entry and
had short paid duty as compared to their actual liability, although Customs duty
liability had already been finally assessed by the Customs authorities on the basis
of Test Reports received from official laboratories.
6. The basic/primary arguments of the petitioner is that the Directorate
of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter called as ‘DRI’), has in fact no jurisdiction to
draw the samples, after clearance of goods in view of the mandate of Section 144
of the Customs Act, 1962, which is for ready reference reproduced hereunder :-
“144. Power to take samples. - (1) The proper officer may, on the
entry or clearance of any goods or at any time while such goods are being passed
through the Customs area, take samples of such goods in the presence of the
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  205