( 1 ) THE petitioner has sought to quash the order dated 13-11-2000 (Annexure 26 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 2 Director General, Directorate General of Health Services (M. G. Section), Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi withdrawing customs duty exemption certificate and the notice dated 16-9-2000 (Annexure 27 to the writ petition) issued by the Commissioner of customs, Air Cargo, New Custom House, New Delhi, respondent No. 3. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is a registered company. It has established a hospital in Kanpur. The Central government issued Notification No. 64 of 1998 under Section 25 of the Customs Act granting exemption in customs duty on import of Hospital equipments and accessories on fulfilling certain terms and conditions. The petitioner applied for grant of such exemption. The petitioner was granted exemption on certain conditions being satisfied Respondent No. 2 issued a notice to the petitioner on 15-5-2000 that a team of officers of the Directorate is to inspect the hospital on 18/19-9-2000 and the petitioner was requested to co-operate with the inspection team. The Chief medical Officer, Kanpur wrote a letter on 28-10-2000 to the petitioner to give all the relevant details in regard to the hospital. The petitioner submitted reply on 29-10-2000 that it is unable to provide complete details in a very short period and sought 4 days time to furnish the proper details. The respondent No. 2 passed the order that on inspection of the institution, the team observed as under : " (i) All patients have to get an OPD Registration Card by paying Rs. 100/ -. Hardly any patient was found to be given free registration. (ii) OPD consultation is provided by private consultants whose fees are collected at the registration. Very rarely, a patient is given free consultation. (iii) No indoor patient was found to be provided free treatment. (iv) No beds were found earmarked for poor patients. (v) The investigation done free of charge in all the labs, were negligible. " on the basis of the said inspection, the exemption was withdrawn. ( 3 ) WE have heard shri S. P. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Subodh kumar learned counsel appearing for the respondents. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. ( 3 ) WE have heard shri S. P. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Subodh kumar learned counsel appearing for the respondents. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The ground on which the exemption has been withdrawn is based on certain facts. It is also passed on the report of the inspection by a team of officers. Details of the report have not been furnished to the petitioner. ( 5 ) THE petitioner shall be given a copy of the inspection report and he can file an objection. The objection, if any, may be filed by the petitioner within two weeks from the date of submission of inspection report to the petitioner. It would be open to the petitioner to place such material evidence as he desires. Respondent No. 2 shall pass appropriate order within a period of one month from the date of filing of objection or within one month from the date of serving of inspection report, If no objection is filed by the petitioner within the period stipulated above. It will be open to respondent No. 2 to make joint inspection to verify the facts. ( 6 ) THE petitioner has also challenged the notice dated 16-9-2000 issued by respondent No. 3. It is mere a show cause notice. The petitioner has right to file objection. We do not find any reason to quash this notice. ( 7 ) IN view of above the writ petition is allowed partly. The order dated 13-11-2000 (Annexure 26 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. The respondent No. 2 shall pass fresh order keeping in view of the observation made above. .