THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.10686 OF 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner Company is engaged in the manufacture of Budweiser beer under a licence from Aneuser Busch boards having its head office at Belgium Road, Baldwinsville, New York. As part of the process, they statedly test the process of manufacture of beer, and the effectiveness of the machinery, by comparing the product manufactured at their facility at Mallepally village with the beer manufactured by the American entity, and, for the said purpose, import beer cans. The consignment of 49 cases (each containing 24 beer cans), consigned under bill of entry dated 18.01.2010 (being B.E. No.332330), arrived at the Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Shamshabad, Hyderabad. The Customs department did not clear the goods, the stock was seized, and a sample of beer from the consignment was sent to State Food Laboratory, Nacharam. Aggrieved by the seizure, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. They sought an interim order to release the seized beer can cases. On 30.04.2010 this Court, while admitting the writ petition, passed interim orders directing the respondent to release the contraband on condition of petitioner paying the value of the goods. The said order was vacated by this Court in WVMP. No.2110 of 2010 dated 05.07.2010 leaving it open to the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with law. While the matter is pending, the petitioner has come forward with yet another application being W.P.M.P. No.25197 of 2010 praying for a direction to the respondent to destroy the entire stock seized by the department of customs. The petitioner seeks to sustain the relief, of destruction of the seized stock, inter alia on the ground that the stock was sent to the testing laboratory under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and, therefore, the petitioner had the right to have a second sample sent to an independent laboratory. The application is also sought to be justified on the ground that a show cause notice has already been issued on 15.07.2010 to which the petitioner has submitted a reply and, without there being an independent testing report, the adjudication by the respondent, pursuant to the show cause notice, would not be effective. This Court heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the Senior Standing Counsel for Central Excise and Customs. The controversy at this stage is, according to us, in a narrow area - whether the petitioner can seek a direction to the Customs to destroy the seized stock and whether the petitioner has a right to seek a direction to the respondents to send the second sample to an independent testing laboratory. In so far as the power of the customs officials to seize the stock, take samples and send it for testing to an appropriate laboratory, is concerned there cannot be any dispute that Section 144 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides for the same. The Senior Standing Counsel submits that the beer is suspected to contain Alprazolam and Diazepam. Atleast one of them, (the former), is certainly a Schedule - I drug under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 and, therefore, we are not inclined to exercise our jurisdiction. In so far as the other relief is concerned, admittedly, the petitioner’s objection petition dated 28.07.2010 is under consideration. In this, the petitioner has also sought the relief to have the second sample sent to an appropriate laboratory. This application can be considered by the adjudicating authority. Having regard to this, we are inclined to dispose of the writ petition in the following manner. It shall be open to the adjudicating authority to proceed with the adjudication pursuant to the show cause notice dated 15.07.2010. This does not, however, preclude the respondent or any other jurisdictional Commissioner to consider the application/request of the petitioner, to send the second sample to the appropriate laboratory, as per law. Appropriate orders may be passed in the said application within a period of two weeks, and the entire matter may be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. No costs. ______________ V.V.S.RAO, J ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date: 05.10.2010 MRKR