Page 188 - ELT_15th August 2020_Vol 373_Part 4

522 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

by the petitioners, is a complete bogey, which ought not be countenanced by this
Court.
9.7 This apart, Learned Counsel relies upon the Board’s Circular No.
1/2011-Cus., dated 4-1-2011 to seek provisional release of goods on execution of
a bond of an amount equivalent to the value of the goods along with an appro-
priate security.
9.8 More importantly, Learned Counsel says that the respondents to
date have not supplied the petitioners with a copy of the second report said to
have been generated by CLRI, despite a request having been made in that behalf.
10. On the other hand, Mr. Sundar, who appears for the respondents,
has resisted the variation of the condition contained in clause (i) of paragraph 6
of the impugned order.
10.1 Quite, inexplicably though, while resisting variation of the afore-
mentioned condition, Learned Counsel makes a submission that the impugned
order being an internal communication between respondent No. 3 and respond-
ent No. 2 cannot be relied upon by the petitioners in the present proceedings.
10.2 Furthermore, Learned Counsel submits, (sans any record or an af-
fidavit) that the second set of samples had to be drawn, as intelligence was re-
ceived by the respondents that the first report was generated after the samples
drawn in that behalf had been surreptitiously substituted.
10.3 Learned Counsel relied upon the Board’s Circular No. 1/2011-
Cus., dated 4-1-2011, and the Facility Circular No. 1/2014, dated 2-1-2014, as also
upon extracts taken from the Board’s Customs Manual, in particular, Clause
2.2.(c), to contend, that there can be no variation of the condition contained in
paragraph 6(i) of the impugned order.
10.4 In order to buttress his submissions, Learned Counsel, relied upon
the following judgments :
(i) Apollo Cranes Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2012 (275) E.L.T. 148 (Bom.)
(ii) Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 28-7-2016,
passed in W.A. No. 377 of 2016, titled : Malabar Diamond Gallery Pvt.
Ltd. v. Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
Chennai Zonal Unit and others [2016 (341) E.L.T. 65 (Mad.)].
11. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
12. Clearly what emerges from the record is as follows :
(i) There are two reports of CLRI one of which has been placed on
record by the petitioners. The other report is in the custody of
the respondents, the existence of which is not denied. The first
favours the petitioners, while the second report, a fact not denied
by Mr. Sundar, is not in favour of the petitioners.
(ii) The subject goods by themselves are not prohibited goods.
(ii)(a) In fact, provisional release is already ordered by respondents,
albeit, on conditions which the petitioners claim are rigorous
and contrary to the usual conditions imposed in such like matter.

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th August 2020  188