Denial Of Re-Testing Of Seized Goods Must Be Occasional And Recorded In Writing: Bombay High Court

Justices M.S. Sonak and Advait M. Sethna stated that "...Ultimately, such denial must be only occasional and that too, on reasonable grounds to be recorded in writing. The guidelines emphasised that this facility of re-testing is nothing but a trade facilitation measure, which, generally, will not be denied in the ordinary course…"

The Petitioner's/assessee's goods were seized, and the matter was referred to the FSSAI Laboratory in the State of Maharashtra. On that occasion, a report was received from the said laboratory, favouring the contentions of the assessee.

On this occasion, the samples from the seized goods were sent to the laboratory in Kerala, which has given a report adverse to the case of the assessee.

Therefore, the assessee, by relying upon Public Notice No.97 of 2017 dated 28 July 2017, which provides for detailed guidelines for retesting of samples, applied to the department/Respondents for re-testing by taking out fresh samples.

The main grievance of the assessee/petitioner concerns the refusal by the department to re-test the seized goods.

The assessee relies on the public notice dated 28 July 2017 and the guidelines contained therein. He emphasises clause 2(g), which provides that the facility of re-testing is a trade facilitation measure, which generally will not be denied in the ordinary course. He submits that there is nothing extraordinary in this matter and the Respondents are acting quite unreasonably in denying this facility to the Petitioners.

The department submitted that a re-test would be made only on the remnants of the samples originally tested or on the duplicate representative sealed samples in the custody of the Customs. He submits that the assessee is now seeking the drawing of fresh samples, which is impermissible even under the public notice of 28 July 2017.

Considering the circumstances of the case, including the admitted fact that previously detained goods were sent to the laboratory in Maharashtra, the bench stated that “we do not think that this was the appropriate occasion for the Customs Authorities to deny the facility of re-testing. Ultimately, such denial must be only occasional and that too, on reasonable grounds to be recorded in writing. The guidelines emphasised that this facility of re-testing is nothing but a trade facilitation measure, which, generally, will not be denied in the ordinary course.”

The bench stated that in any event, if the assessee wishes to have a re-test carried out by collecting fresh samples that are in the custody of the Customs officials themselves, such a request cannot be refused on unreasonable grounds.

All this emphasises the intention of the department itself that requests for re-testing should ordinarily be considered unless, of course, there are exceptional circumstances to deny them. The objective of such guidelines is to determine the correct status of the imported goods in a mutually fair manner. The object is not to trip on the importers or to make the determination of truth difficult, added the bench.

In view of the above, the bench directed the drawal of fresh samples from the goods seized within five days from the date of the order.

Case Title: Shri Vyom Dipesh Raichanna v. Union of India

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.10708 OF 2025

Counsel for Petitioner/Assessee: Dr. Sujay Kantawala, a/w Aishwarya Kantawala, Ayushi Jha i/b. Jeffry Caleb

Counsel for Respondent/Department: Mr. Jitendra Mishra, a/w Ms. Sangeeta Yadav for Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 7 and Mr. Akash Vijay, for Respondent No.8

Click Here To Read/Download The Order