Page 186 - ELT_15th August 2020_Vol 373_Part 4

520 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

5.2 Evidently, on 5-10-2016, samples were drawn by respondent No. 2,
which were sent for testing to the Central Leather Research Institute (in short
“CLRI”).
5.3 Consequent thereto, on 7-10-2016, CLRI submitted its report, which
was indicative of the fact that the samples, satisfied the norms stipulated under
the public notice.
5.4 It appears that respondent No. 3 was not satisfied with the report of
CLRI, as it had received intelligence inputs which propelled him to doubt the
veracity of the outcome indicated in the CLRI report.
5.5 Resultantly, on 8-10-2016, the warehouse, where the consignments
were lying, were sealed. The aforesaid action was followed by fresh samples be-
ing drawn by respondent No. 3, on 14-10-2016.
5.6 Given the fact that there was a delay in moving the goods out of
India, on 7-11-2016, the petitioners, via their Advocate, submitted a representa-
tion to the Commissioner of Customs (Exports), to seek, provisional release of
subject goods.
5.7 Pertinently, the request for release was, inter alia, based on the pro-
visions of the Circular No. 1/2011-Cus., dated 4-1-2011, issued by the Central
Board of Excise and Customs (in short “the Board”).
5.8 Admittedly, the said representation was not, immediately, attended
to and, instead, a second set of samples was drawn by respondent No. 3, on 9-11-
2016. These samples were also sent by respondent No. 3, for testing to CLRI.
6. The petitioners, having become aware of this development, appar-
ently, on 11-11-2016, made a request to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs,
SIIB, Customs House, Chennai, that they be supplied the test report generated by
CLRI; which, incidentally, would have been the second test report.
6.1 I may only note that each of the petitioners sent an identical,
though, separate communication of even date, i.e., 11-11-2016. Furthermore, in
this communication, once again, the petitioners, inter alia, sought release of the
subject goods at the earliest.
6.2 It is the case of the petitioners that on 15-11-2016, a meeting, along
with their Advocate, was convened with respondent No. 3, to seek a status re-
port, with regard to the matter in issue.
6.3 It appears that two days later, a second meeting, in this behalf, was
also convened with respondent No. 3, that is, on 17-11-2016. The exercise, I am
given to understand, was repeated on 18-11-2016 and 22-11-2016. According to
the petitioners, the Customs House Clearing Agent (CHA) engaged by them, also
met up with respondent No. 3, to check the status of the consignments.
6.4 The record shows that the subject consignments, in the interreg-
num, were formally seized on 16-11-2016, via nine (9) separate seizure memos of
even date, i.e., 16-11-2016.
6.5 A perusal of the seizure memos would show that the respondents
have seized the subject consignments, in exercise of power under Section 110 of
the Customs Act, 1962 (in short “the Act”), albeit, with effect from the date of

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th August 2020  186