Page 159 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] RAGHAV WOOLLEN MILLS PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 45
report(s) from official laboratories vindicating the description of goods as dis-
closed by the petitioner in his Bill of Entry, the Proper Officer framed final as-
sessment in terms of the declared description and valuation of goods and the
Customs duty already paid by the petitioner. Consequently, the Proper Officer
cancelled the bond and returned the bank guarantee furnished earlier for secur-
ing the additional demand, if any.
10. The positive case of the petitioner is that once the goods were
cleared and had reached the premises of the petitioner, it gets mixed with the
other goods. Therefore, once all the transactions/goods cleared from Customs
area as noticed in the table given in the foregoing paras, were between January
2016 to April 2016, the action to draw fresh samples on/after 11-8-2016 from the
factory premises, is totally without jurisdiction, unwarranted and is in violation
of Section 144 of the Act. The action of the respondents, vide which, two pan-
chnama(s) dated 11-8-2016 (Annexures P-3 & P-6), whereby, the respondents
seized the entire goods (lying in the factory premises) is also consequentially
without jurisdiction, more so, when after the receipt of Test Reports from the of-
ficial Laboratories, the final assessment of Customs duty was framed.
11. Counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Su-
preme Court of India in M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd v. Collector of Customs, Bombay,
2002 (4) SCC 297 = 2002 (141) E.L.T. 593 (S.C.) to convass that where the context
and the object and mischief of the enactment do not required restricted meaning
to be attached to words of general import it becomes the duty of the Courts to
give those words their plain and ordinary meaning. The provision of the statute
i.e. Section 144 as reproduced above, clearly refers to the intention of the framers
of the statute. In Section 144, it has been clearly provided 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 Customs area, no fresh samples of such imported goods
can be redrawn from any other area.
12. In the present case, after the release of imported goods approxi-
mately by April 2016 from the Customs area, there was no power with the au-
thorities, much less under Section 144 of the Act, to draw samples at a subse-
quent stage i.e. on 11-8-2016 from the factory premises.
13. In view of our findings noticed above, we are of the considered
opinion that both the writ petitions deserve to be allowed with the following di-
rections :-
(i) The Panchnama(s) dated 11-8-2016 (Annexure P-3)/6-10-2016 (An-
nexure P-8), effecting the seizure of imported stock of the petition-
er(s) are quashed.
(ii) Respondent No. 2/DRI is directed to release the seized material of
the petitioners and also return the resumed documents of the peti-
tioners.
(iii) The needful as directed in direction No. (ii) qua both the petitioners,
be done forthwith, maximum within two weeks from the date of re-
ceipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, the Competent
Authority shall make itself liable for being hauled up in contempt
proceedings and imposition of exemplary costs.
(iv) No order as to costs.
_______
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  207