Judgment : ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. (1). Controversy relates to import of pitch (tar) by the respondent No. 1 from abroad. According to the said respondent, since pitch was itemized as "2708" under subheading 11 and 19 they imported the consignments under sub-heading 11 for a long time. In 1988 the authority objected as according to them the bill of entry was not properly filled up as the subject consignment should be under sub-heading 19 and not under sub-heading 11. Correspondence were exchanged between the Customs Authority and the said respondent with regard to the nature of production of the tar so imported by the said respondent. The said respondent also produced materials with regard to the manufacturing process to some extent. They, however, could not get such process in detail as the manufacturer refused to divulge the same. The Customs Authority was not satisfied with the explanation given by the importer that gave rise to the present litigation. (2). The learned Single Judge by His Lordships judgment and order dated September 7, 1994 disposed of the writ petition. (3). Before His Lordship it was contended on behalf of the said respondent that since the subject consignment could be cleared under sub-heading 11, 19 or 20 it was for the Customs Authority to show that it was not covered under sub-heading 11. The said respondent on the basis of declaration of the manufacturer proceeded to import the consignment under sub-heading 11. If the authority was dissatisfied they must show the reason for dissatisfaction. They were to prove that it was not under sub-heading 11. On the basis of the surmise and conjecture the authority was not entitled to issue the show-cause notice and the same should be quashed and set aside. (4). On behalf of the Customs Authority it was contended that since the said respondent came at the stage of show-cause notice the Court should not interfere and allow the process to continue on merits. It was contended that onus of proving that the tar had not been obtained by cut back method was on the importer to come out of the mischief of sub-heading 19. (5). The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by observing that the show-cause notice was issued on the basis of surmise and conjecture. The learned Single Judge quashed the show-cause notice. (6). (5). The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by observing that the show-cause notice was issued on the basis of surmise and conjecture. The learned Single Judge quashed the show-cause notice. (6). Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge the Customs Authority preferred the instant appeal. (7). Mr. S.B. Saraf, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated what was submitted before the learned Single Judge on behalf of the Customs Authority. In addition Mr. Saraf contended that the learned Single Judge should have allowed the Customs Authorities to prove their contention before the adjudicating authority. (8). Mr. Abhijit Chatterjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent contended that there was not an iota of evidence to support the contention of the Customs Authorities that the subject consignments could come within the mischief of sub-heading 19. Mr. Chatterjee also contended that the primary onus was upon the Customs Authority to show that they were prima facie satisfied on the basis of the materials received by them as a result of investigation. Customs miserably failed to produce any such material. Hence, it would be futile to allow the show-cause proceeding to be proceeded with and the learned Judge rightly allow the writ petition. (9). The parties cited the following decisions:-(i) All India Reporter 1962, Supreme Court, Page 1893 (East India Commercial Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta), (ii) 1991, Volume 53, Excise Law Times, Page 234 (Calcutta) (ITC Limited v. Union of India), (iii) 1991, Volume 51, Excise Law Times, Page 334 (Bombay) (Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. v. Union of India), (iv) 1997, Volume 94, Excise Law Times, Page 285 (Supreme Court) (Union of India v. Bajaj Tempo Ltd.), (v) 1998, Volume 100, Excise Law Times, Page 14 (Supreme Court) (Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation Ltd.), (vi) 2003, Volume -V, Supreme Court Cases, Page 194 (Union of India v. Hindalco Industries). (10). The subject consignment admittedly falls within the category 2708. While making further classification under different sub-heading subject consignment could come within sub-heading 11 or 19 or 20. The respondent on the basis of the information received from there overseas seller imported the consignment under sub-heading 11. If the Customs Authority was not satisfied with such classification they must at least prima facie show the reason for such dissatisfaction. While making further classification under different sub-heading subject consignment could come within sub-heading 11 or 19 or 20. The respondent on the basis of the information received from there overseas seller imported the consignment under sub-heading 11. If the Customs Authority was not satisfied with such classification they must at least prima facie show the reason for such dissatisfaction. Law permits the statutory authorities to question the conduct of a party within the framework of the said statute. Such statutory authority is also under obligation to satisfy itself that there are reasons for questioning such conduct. Before issuance of show-cause notice the authority should have investigated into the matter and after prima facie satisfaction the authority should have issued the show-cause notice. We have perused the show-cause notice. From the tenure of the show-cause notice it appears that the Customs Authority put the burden on the respondent that they Would have to show that the subject consignment was not manufactured by cut back method to come out of the mischief of sub-heading 19. This is not the right approach. We are in full agreement with His Lordship on this score. (11). The respondents initially tried to explain by furnishing materials lying in their possession collected from their overseas exporter. If someone buys a product the purchaser is entitled to know the contents of the finished product. This is permitted in law. Whether the consignment was manufactured by cut back method or strengthened method, was within the special knowledge of the manufacturer. So long it is not divulged by the manufacturer and so long it does not come out the authority was not entitled to question the bill of entry. (12). The appeal thus, fails and is hereby dismissed. There would be no order as to costs. (13). This order of dismissal will, however, not preclude the appellant to start the proceeding de novo strictly following the observations made by us herein.