M/S. TATA CHEMICALS LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) JAM NAGAR
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 132, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A 
B 
[2015]7S.C.R.132 
M/S. TATA CHEMICALS LTD. 
v. 
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) 
JAM NA GAR 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7439- 7440of2004) 
MAY 14, 2015 
[A. K. SIKRI AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.] 
c 
Customs Act, 1962 - s. 18(b) - Customs duty -
Exemption - Notification no. 35190, 36190 and 23191 wherein 
coking coal having Ash content below 12% exempted from 
basic customs duty that was in excess of 5% - Assessee 
engaged in the manufacture of soda ash and coke, imported 
D consignment of Low Ash Metallurgical Coal -At the time of 
shipment, inspection agency did detailed sampling following 
the British Standards equivalent to IS standards and as per 
the independent agency report moisture content was 7. 2% 
and Ash content of the coking coal was 9. 8% - On arrival of 
E samples, the Customs Inspector without objecting to the 
aforesaid report, drew its own samples in absence of any 
representative of the assessee and in contravention of IS 
standards - Reports by Department test agency that Ash 
content in the samples was more than 12% - Demand of 
F differential duty by the Department- Denial of exemption of 
customs duty in tenns of the Notification- Tribunal upholding 
the demand of duty on the ground that even though the 
samples were drawn contrary to law, assessee would be 
G estopped because their representative was present when the 
samples were drawn and they did not object immediately -
On appeal, held: Entire chemical analysis of the imported 
goods done by the
Department was ultra vires s.18(b) -
Expressions "deems it necessary" uls. 1 B(b) does not mean 
H the subjective satisfaction or arbitrary power of the officer 
132
TATA CHEMICALS LTD. v. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS 
133 
(PREVENTIVE) JAMNAGAR 
concerned - 1t has to be exercised in accordance with the A 
restraints imposed by law- If the law requires that something 
be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that 
manner, and if not done in that manner it has no existence in 
the eye of law at all - Thus, the Customs Authorities not 
absolve from following the law depending upon the acts of a B 
particular assessee - Order passed by the tribunal set aside. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The expressions "deems it necessary", c 
"reason to believe" u/s. 18 of the Customs Act have been 
held not to mean the subjective satisfaction of the officer 
concerned. Such power given to the concerned officer 
is not an arbitrary power and has to be exercised in 
accordance with the restraints imposed by law. The o 
expression "deems it necessary" obviously means that 
the proper officer must have good reason to subject 
imported goods to a chemical or other tests. And, on the 
facts of the instant case, it is clear that where the importer 
has furnished all the necessary documents to support E 
the fact that the ash content in the coking coal imported 
is less than 12%, the proper officer must, when 
questioned, state that, at the very least, the documents 
produced do not inspire confidence for some good prima 
facie reason. The Revenue never stated that CASCO's F 
certificate of quality ought to be rejected or is defective 
in any
manner. Thus, the entire chemical analysis of the 
imported goods done by the Department was ultra vi res 
Section 18(b) of the Customs Act. Further, the samples G 
drawn by the Inspector have been drawn contrary to the 
express provisions of IS 436. On this count also, test 
reports based on the same cannot be looked at. [Paras 
14, 16 and 17] [142-G-H; 143-A-B; 144-8; 145-E-F] 
1.2 The tribunal's judgment proceeded on the H
134 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A basis that even though the samples were drawn contrary 
to law, the appellants would be estopped because their 
representative was present when the samples were 
drawn and they did not object immediately. This is a 
completely perverse finding both on fact and law. On 
B fact, it has been more than amply proved that no 
representative of the appellant was, in fact, present at 
the time the Customs Inspector took the samples. 
Employee of the Company who was allegedly present 
not only stated that he did not represent the Clearing 
C Agent of the appellants in that he was not their employee 
but also stated that he was not present when the samples 
were taken. In fact, therefore, there was no representative 
of the appellants when the samples were taken. In law 
0 equally the tribunal ought to have realized that there can 
be no estoppel against law. If the law requires that 
something be done in a particular manner, it must be 
done in that manner, and if not done in that manner has 
no existence in the eye of law at all. The Customs 
E Authorities are not absolved from following the law 
depending upon the acts of a particular assessee. 
Something that is illegal cannot convert itself into 
something legal by the act of a third person. Thus, the 
judgment of the tribunal is set aside. [Paras 17 and 18] 
F [145-F-H; 146-A-D] 
Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. S.D. Agarwal (1969) 3 S.C.R. 
108; Shea Nath Singh v. Appellate Assistant
Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta (1972) 1 SCR 
G 
175; Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M. V. Dabholkar 
(1976) 2 S.C.R. 48; N. Nagendra Rao & Co. v. State of 
A.P. 1994 (3) suppl. SCR 144: (1994) 6 sec 20s; 
Bombay Oil Industries (P) Ltd. v. Union of India 1995 
(77) E.L.T. 32 (S.C.); Union of India v. Delhi Cloth & 
H 
General Mills Co. Ltd. 1963 Suppl. (1) SCR 586 -
referred to.
TATA CHEMICALS LTD. v. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS 
135 
(PREVENTIVE) JAMNAGAR 
Case Law Reference 
(1969) 3 S.C.R. 108 
Referred to. 
Para 15 
(1972) 1 SCR 175 
Referred to. 
Para 15 
.1 -
1[1976) 2 S.C.R. 48 
Referred to. 
Para 15 
1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 144 Referred to. 
·Para 15 
1995 (77) E.L.T. 32 (S.C.) Referred to. 
Para 16 
1963 Suppl. (1) SCR 586 Referred to. 
Para 16 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 
7 439-7 440 of 2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.09.2004 of the 
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West 
A 
B 
c 
Zonal Bench, Mumbai in Appeal No. C/325, 326/98-Mum. 
D 
WITH 
C. A. Nos. 7628-7629 of 2004 
S. K. Bagaria, Ruby Singh Ahuja, lshaan Gaur, Chahat E 
Chawla, Manik Karanjawala, Amit Maharia, K. Ajit Singh, 
Tannushree Singh (For Meharia & Company) for the Appellant. 
K. Radhakrishnan, Rupesh Kumar, Arijit Prasad, B. 
Krishna Prasad for the Respondent. 
F 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R. F. NARIMAN, J. 1. The appellants were engaged in 
the manufacture of soda ash and Coke. For the manufacture G 
of Coke, they require coking coal which was importeq by them. 
Notification No.35/90 exempted coking coal having an ash 
content below 12% from basic customs duty that Wqs in excess 
of 5%. In addition, notifications 36/90 and 23/91 exempted 
coking coal with ash content of less than 12% from the whole H
136 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A of auxiliary duty and additional duty of customs. 
2. On 4.2.1991, the appellants had entered into an 
agreement with Philbro Energy Company (situated in the USA) 
for supply of 30500 metric tons, CIF, Okha of Low Ash 
B Metallurgical Coal produced by M/s Kembla Coal and Coke, 
Australia.'vThe contract specifically provided that the ash 
content was not to exceed 10.3% and that the sampling and 
analysis was to be done by an independent inspection agency 
of international repute, namely, M/s Cargo Superintendents 
C Company (Asia) Pty. Limited (CASCO), at the loading port 
and that C
1ASCO should give a certificate regarding analysis 
of the coking coal. In accordance with the aforesaid agreement, 
the appellants in Civil Appeal Nos.7439-7440 of2004, namely, 
M/s. Tata Chemicals Limited imported 33462 metric tons and 
D appellants in Civil Appeal Nos.7628-7629 of 2004, namely, 
M/s. B.L.A. Coke Private Limited imported 5000 metric tons 
of coking coal. Detailed sampling was done by CASCO while 
the coal was being loaded on to the ship and CASCO had 
meticulously followed British Standards equivalent to IS 
E standards 436 and 1350. Tha two consignments were divided 
into samples of 3000 metric tons each and from each sample 
CASCO took samples weighing 470 kilograms each. The 
primary samples were passed through secondary sampling, 
F crushing and tertiary treatment. 13 sample units were 
separately tested, their analysis report
obtained and the 
average furnished in the form of a consolidated test report. 
This report stated that the moisture content was 7 .2% and the 
ash content of the said coking coal was 9.8%. 
G 
3. When the aforesaid consignment arrived at Okha, the 
appellants in both the appeals filed bill of entry dated 15.3.1991 
and claimed exemption under the aforesaid notifications. Along 
with the bill of entry, the appellants also submitted the certificate 
H of CASQO. It is important to note that the Department at no
TATA CHEMICALS LTD. v. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS 
137 
(PREVENTIVE) JAMNAGAR [R. F. NARIMAN, J.] 
stage stated that they have not accepted the CASCO report A 
or that the CASCO report was defective in a~y manner. 
However, the Customs Inspector at Okha apparently drew 
samples of 20 kilograms each - one from the ves~~I and one 
from the shore on 18.3.2001 and beat them with stones to 
crush them. The samples were then made into powder form. 
B 
4. The samples were not drawn in the presence of any 
employee of the appellants. It was alleged by the Department 
that the Inspector had drawn the samples in the' presence of 
Shri K.M. Jani who was allegedly an employee of Bhagwati C 
and Company, clearing agents appointed by the appellants. It 
. is common ground that the sample so drawn had not been 
drawn in accordance with IS 436. 
5. The samples so drawn, however, were sent to the o 
Central Fuel Research Institute, Dhanbad, to be analysed. On 
13.1.1992, the appellants were informed by the Superintendent 
of Customs that the test agency stated that the ash content in 
the samples was more than 12%. A copy of the report was 
subsequently furnished to the appellants which indicated that E 
the ash content of the coal belonging to Tata Chemicals was 
13.8% and that belonging to M/s. B.L.A. Coke Private Limited 
was 12.6%. On objection being made to the said report, the 
Superintendent Okha sent two samples to the Chief Chemist, 
Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL) on 15.2.1992. F
CRCL in turn submitted its report after another delay of 10 
months and reported that Tata Chemicals coal had an ash 
content of 12.21% and that of B.L.A. 12.33%. 
6. As a result of the ash content being more.than 12%, G 
show cause notices dated 4.1.1993 was issued to both the 
appellants and differential duty was demandedjrom both of 
them. 
\...'· . 
7. By an order dated 31.3.1995, the Assistant Collector H
138 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015)7 S.C.R. 
A demanded an amount of Rs.3,95, 77,324/- from Tata Chemicals 
and an amount of Rs.59,136,771/- from Mis. B.L.A. Coke 
Private Limited. 
I 
8. On an appeal filed to the Commissioner (Appeals) 
B Ahmedabad, the Commissioner by an order dated 
30 .12 .1997, set aside the order of the Assistant Collector in 
the following terms:-
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
"10. In view of the above discussion and after going 
through the comments of the Assistant Commissioner, 
Customs, Jamnagar as discussed in para 5.3 supra, 
wherein he was asked to give his comments on the 
submission made by the appellants during the course of 
personal hearing. It is seen that the Assistant 
Commissioner has accepted all the points raised by the 
appellants and he has not been able to controvert any of 
their submissions. I come to the conclusion that the 
appellants have substantial force in their arguments and 
therefore I held that nothing can be added into the 
notification and when notification does not prescribe the 
method of analysis for ascertaining the ash content in 
the coal, it should be ascertained on as received basis. 
I rely upon the ratio of the decisions cited by the appellants 
in this regard. The CFRI and CRCL have conducted 
analysis to ascertain the ash content on gross air dried 
basis, in spite of clear instruction of the Asttt. 
Commissioner, Customs, Jamnagar to give the report 
on as received basis, therefore, these reports should 
have been
given on as received basis. I accept the plea 
of the appellants that these results can be converted into 
as received basis, which fact has also been accepted 
by the Assistant Commissioner as discussed in para 5.3 
above, by applying the formula followed internationally. 
By applying the formula which is accepted all over the
TATA CHEMICALS LTD. v. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS 
139 
(PREVENTIVE) JAMNAGAR [R. F. NARIMAN, J.) 
world and has been given by the appellants during the 
A 
course of their submissions, the ash content on as 
received basis would be 11.8% and 11.6% in the case 
of M/s. BLAlndustriesand 13.9% and 11.4% in the case 
of M/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd. The formula for working out 
these results is as under: 
B 
100 - Mar 
Mar: Moisture as received 
100 - Mad Mad: Moisture as dried. 
It is seen that in case of M/s BLA Industries results of 
both laboratories converted into as received basis gives 
ash content below 12% and in the case of Mis Tata 
Chemicals Ltd. Though the first result even after such 
conversion crossed 12% marginally, but the result of 
subsequent analysis conducted by CRCL after such 
conversion gives content of ash content below 12%. 
Therefore, after conversion on as received basis, which 
is the requirement of the law, the ash content in both the 
cases is below 12% and therefore both the appellants 
are entitled for partial concessional rate of Customs duty 
in excess of 5% as prescribed by Notification No.35/90" 
c 
D 
E 
9. Revenue appealed to CESTATwho by the impugned 
judgment and order dated 24.9.2004 allowed Revenue's F 
appeal and set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) 
basically on the ground that even though the samples drawn 
by the Inspector were contrary to IS 436, yet since a 
representative of the appellants was present, the appellants 
are
estopped from turning around at a later stage inasmu<?h G 
as they did not immediately object to the drawing of•samples 
contrary to law. 
··I<!; 
10. Shri S. K. Bagaria, learned senior advocate on behalf 
of the appellants argued before us that the Australian Company H
140 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A from whose mines the r.oking coal was sent, generally mined 
coal with an ash content of less than 12%. He referred to and 
relied upon a great deal of material to establish this fact. 
Further, he went on to state that CASCO, the test agency, was 
internationally renowned and had given a test report/certificate· 
B of quality which described how meticulously they have taken 
samples in accordance with law and how ultimately the samples 
were found to contain ash at only 9.8% following the gross air 
dried method. He also referred us to Section 18 of the 
Customs Act and stated that since no fault had been found 
C with CASCO's certificate, the entire sampling done by the 
customs authorities was invalid in law. He further went on to 
refer to the cross-examination of the Inspector who drew the 
samples and stated that the samples were drawn in the 
0 afternoon of 18.3.1991, the entire operation being completed 
by 1730 hours. No panchnama was drawn. 20 kilograms 
was taken from the shore and 20 kilograms from the vessel 
contrary to a minimum of 75 kilograms for six lots to be taken 
under IS 436. When cross-examined, the Inspector stated that 
E he did not know about IS 436 and he further admitted that he 
put the samples in a plastic bucket which did not have any lid. 
He further went on to state that he had broken up the sampled 
lumps with stones and then put the resultant powder in 
containers. He further referred to the
cross-examination of the 
F Superintendent who had deputed the Inspector to carry out 
the samples who was equally in the dark about IS 436. Above 
all, he characterized as perverse the Tribunal's findings that 
the appellants were estopped because their representative 
was present when the sampling was done. He stated that no 
G representative of either appellant was present. One K.M. Jani 
alone was present who admitted in his cross-examination that 
he did not work for the appellants Clearing Agent, namely, M/s 
Bhagwati & Company. Further the said Mr. Jani did not go 
together with the Inspector and no samples were actually drawn 
H in his presence.
TATA CHEMICALS LTD. v. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS 
141 
(PREVENTIVE) JAMNAGAR [R. F. NARIMAN, J.] 
'11. Shri Radhakrishnan, learned senior advocate A 
appearing on behalf of the respondent countered the 
submissions of Shri Bagaria by reading copiously from the 
order of the Assistant Collector and the order of the Tribunal. 
According to him, the samples taken by the Inspector could 
be taken because statutory authority is given for the same by B 
Section 18 of the Customs Act. He went on to further state that 
even though the samples may not have been taken strictly in 
accordance with IS 436 nonetheless as Shri Jani was present, 
the rule of estoppel would apply against the appellants. 
12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is • 
important to first extract Section 18 of the Customs Act. Section 
18 of the Customs reads as under:-
c 
"Section 18. Provisional assessment of duty 
o 
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act but 
without prejudice to the provisions contained in section 
46-
(a) where the proper officer is satisfied that an importer 
or exporter is unable to produce any document or f1.4rnish 
any information necessary for the assessment of duty on 
the imported goods or the export goods, as tie case may 
be; or 
(b) where the proper officer deems it necessary to subject 
any imported goods or export goods to any chemical or 
other test for the purpose of assessment of duty thereon 
; or 
(c) where the importer or the exporter has produced all
the necessary documents and furnished full information 
for the assessment of duty butthe proper officer deems 
it necessary to make further enquiry for assessing the 
duty, the proper officer may direct that the duty leviable 
E 
F 
G 
H
142 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
on such goods may, pending the production of such 
documents orfumishing of such information or completion 
of such test or enquiry, be assessed provisionally if the 
importer or the exporter, as the case may be, furnishes 
such security as the proper officer deems fit for the 
payment of the deficiency, if any, between the duty finally 
assessed and the duty provisionally assessed. 
(2) When the duty leviable on such goods is assessed 
finally in accordance with the provisions of this Act, then-
( a) in the case of goods cleared for home consumption 
or exportation, the amount paid shall be adjusted against 
the duty finally assessed and if the amount so paid falls 
short of, or is in excess of 20[the duty finally assessed,] 
. o 
the importer or the exporter of the goods shall pay the 
deficiency or be entitled to a refund, as the case may be; 
(b) in the case of warehoused goods, the proper officer 
may, where the duty finally assessed is in excess of the 
E 
duty provisionally assessed, require the importer to 
execute a bond, binding himself in a sum equal to twice 
the amount of the excess duty." 
13. The Revenue has grounded its case in Section 1 B(b) 
F which provides that imported goods can be subjected to 
chemical or other tests for the purpose of assessment of duty 
thereon where the proper officer deems it necessary to so 
subject the imported goods. 
14. In our opinion, the expression "deems it necessary" 
G
obviously means that the proper officer must have good reason 
to subject imported goods to a chemical or other tests. And, 
on the facts of the present case, it is clear that where the 
importer has furnished all the necessary documents to support 
H the fact that the ash content in the coking coal imported is less 
than 12%, the proper officer must, when questioned, state that,
TATA CHEMICALS LTD. v. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS 
143 
(PREVENTIVE) JAMNAGAR [R. F. NARIMAN, J.] 
at the very least, the documents produced do not inspire A 
confidence for some good prima facie reason. In the present 
case, as has been noted above, the Revenue has never stated 
that CASCO's certificate of quality ought to be rejected or is 
defective in any manner. This being the case, it is clear that 
the entire chemical analysis of the imported goods done by B 
the Department was ultra vires Section 18(b) of the Customs 
Act. 
15. Statutes often use expressions such as "deems it 
necessary", "reason to believe" etc. Suffice it to say that these C 
expressions have been held not to mean the subjective 
satisfaction of the officer concerned. Such power given to the 
concerned officer is not an arbitrary power and has to be 
exercised in accordance with the restraints imposed by law. 
That this is a well settled position, of law is clear from the D 
following judgments. See: Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. S.D. 
Agarwal, (1969) 3 S.C.R. 108at129. To similar effect is the 
judgment in Sheo Nath Singh v. Appellate Assistant 
Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta, (1972) 1 SCR 175 
at 182. In that case it was held as under: 
E 
" ... There can be no manner of doubt that the words 
"reason to believe" suggest that the belief must be that 
. of an honest and reasonable person base'd upon 
reasonable grounds and that the Income Tax Officer may 
act on direct or circumstantial evidence but not
on mere 
suspicion, -gossip or rumour. The Income Tax Officer 
would be acting without jurisdiction ifthe reason for his 
belief that the conditions are satisfied does not exist or 
is not material or relevant to the belief required by the 
section. The Court can always examine this aspect 
though the declaration or sufficiency of the reasons for 
the belief cannot be investigated by the Court." 
F 
G 
See also Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar, H
144 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A [1976] 2 S.C.R. 48 at 51. N. Nagendra Rao & Co. v. State of 
A.P. (1994) 6 sec 205 at 216. 
16. The admitted position on record is that the samples 
drawn were not drawn in accordance with law and were drawn 
B with no regard whatsoever to IS436. That IS436would apply 
to the facts of the present case is made clear by our judgment 
reported in Bombay Oil Industries (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 
1995 (77) E.L.T. 32 (S.C.), where this Court held following 
Union of India v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd., 1963 
C Suppl. (1) SCR 586, that if the method of testing of any item of 
Central Excise tariff is not mentioned, then the Indian Standard 
Institution's method should be applied. That this would apply 
to the Customs Act as well. IS 436 lays down:-
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
""5. SAMPLING FROM SHIPS DURING LOADING OR 
UNLOADING 
5.1 Sub-lots - For the purpose of sampling, the entire 
quantity of coal in a ship shall be divided into a suitable 
number of sub-lots of approximately equal weight as 
specified in 
Table 1. 
5.1.1 A gross sample shall be drawn from each of the 
sub-lots and shall be kept separately so that there will be 
as many gross samples as the number of sub-lots into 
which the lot has been divided. 
5.2. Sampling of coal frc?m ships shall be carried out, as 
far as practicable, when coal is in motion. If it is taken on 
a conveyer, the gross s&imple shall be collected as per 
the procedure laid down in Table 3. If
not, the gross 
samples may be drawn during loading or unloading of 
the ship. For this purpose, the number of increments to 
be taken shall be governed by the weight of the gross 
sample and the weight of increment as specified in Table 
3 for various size groups of coal."
TATA CHEMICALS LTD. v. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS 
145 
(PREVENTIVE) JAMNAGAR [R. F. NARIMAN, J.] 
TABLE 1 NUMBER OF SUB-LOTS/GROSS SAMPLES 
A 
(Clauses 0.3.4.1 and 3.1 ) 
Weight of the Lot 
(Metric Tonnes) 
Upto 500 
501to1000 
1001to2000 
2001to3000 
Over3000 
No. of sub-Lots/Gross Samples 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6." 
B 
c 
Then the IS 436 goes on to describe the procedure to 
D 
reduce a gross sample into a sample for a lab test etc. in 
great detail, and speaks about the minimum weight of a 
gross sample being 75 Kg so far as "Coal, small" is 
concerned. 
17. Clearly the samples drawn by the Inspector in t~e. 
present case, have been drawn contrary to the express 
provisions of IS 436. On this count also, the samples being 
drawn not in accordance with law, test reports based on the 
E 
same cannot be looked at. 
F 
The Tribunal's judgment has proceeded on the basis that 
even though the samples were drawn contrary to law, the 
appellants would be estopped because their representative 
was present when the samples were drawn and they did not G 
object immediately. This is a completely perverse finding both 
on fact and law. On fact, it has been more than amply proved . 
· that no representative of the appellant was, in fact, present at 
the time the Customs Inspector took the samples. Shri K.M. 
Jani who was allegedly present not only stated that he did not H
146 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 7 S.C.R. 
A represent the Clearing Agent of the appellants in that he was 
not their employee but also stated that he was not present when 
the samples were taken, In fact, therefore, there was no 
representative of the appellants when the samples were taken. 
In law equally the Tribunal oughtto have realized that there can 
B be no estoppel against law. If the law requires that something 
be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner, 
and if not done in that manner has no existence in the eye of 
law at all. The Customs Authorities are not absolved from 
following the law depending upon the acts of a particular 
C assessee. Something that is illegal cannot convert itself into 
something legal by the act of a third person. 
18. It is clear therefore that the Tribunal judgment has to 
be set aside on all these counts. The appeals are, therefore, 
D allowed with no order as to costs. 
Nidhi Jain 
Appeals allowed.