PRASAD SPINNERS PVT LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Deshpande for the petitioners. Mr. Sethna appears for the respondents.

(2.) Few facts ought to be mentioned for understanding the order which I proceed to pass. 42 bales purporting to contain wool waste were imported by the petitioners and on 29th of August, 1989, Bills of Entry along with the accompanying documents necessary for the clearance of the goods were filed. On 2nd of September, 1989, three samples were taken by the Appraising Officer under the supervision of the Assistant Collector and the report of the Deputy Chief Chemist of the department itself gave a Finding that the samples were of wool waste. Not satisfied with this report, the department ordered fresh samples to be taken which was done on 6th of October, 1989. From what has been mentioned in the petition and in the affidavits, it is seen that samples were taken from each of the bales and were sent to the Wool Research Association and the latter reported that the samples were of wool waste. The Assistant Collector was still not satisfied and it is mentioned that he told the petitioners that he would like to take a further opinion from the Deputy Chief Chemist of the department.

(3.) It is to challenge this action of the respondents that the petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, contending that the respondents are dilly-dallying in clearing the goods. The Assistant Collector of Customs (Group III) filed an affidavit dated 7th of December, 1989 in this Court and from the averments in this affidavit, one has got to infer that the Assistant Collector took fresh samples after the receipt of the two reports, namely, the first from the Deputy Chief Chemist and the other from the Wool Research Association. In paragraph 8 of the affidavit, the Assistant Collector specifically mentioned that his Group ordered the Dock staff to draw fresh samples separately from different bales and specifically ordered that the samples taken from each bale should be sealed separately. The petitioners filed an affidavit-in-rejoinder on 11th of December, 1989 and pointed out that the contents of paragraph 8 of the affidavit of the Assistant Collector are patently false, because no samples could be taken from the bales since the bales are in a container which is locked and the key of the container is with the petitioners.