Re-testing of seized imported goods must ordinarily be allowed; denial needs recorded reasons, with provisional release still available.

Re-testing of imported goods under the governing Public Notice, treated as a trade facilitation measure, should ordinarily be allowed, and refusal requires reasonable grounds recorded in writing. On the facts, no convincing basis was shown to deny fresh sampling, so the petitioner was entitled to re-testing by drawal of fresh samples from the seized goods. Once sampling was undertaken, and the prescribed bank guarantees and bonds had been furnished, there was no principled reason to refuse provisional release if the applicable requirements were met. The petitioner was therefore permitted to pursue provisional release in accordance with the relevant conditions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to re-testing by drawal of fresh samples from the seized goods under the Public Notice governing re-testing of imported goods; (ii) Whether, upon drawal of samples for re-testing, the petitioner was entitled to seek provisional release of the seized goods.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to re-testing by drawal of fresh samples from the seized goods under the Public Notice governing re-testing of imported goods.

Analysis: The Public Notice treated re-testing as a trade facilitation measure and contemplated that it would ordinarily not be denied. The Court held that the guidelines required substantial compliance and that denial of re-testing had to be occasional and supported by reasonable grounds recorded in writing. In the facts, the resistance to re-testing was found inconsistent with the object of the guidelines, especially since no convincing reason was shown for sending the samples to a different laboratory and the record did not displace the petitioner's assertion that the goods were comparable to the earlier detained goods.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to re-testing by drawal of fresh samples from the seized goods.

Issue (ii): Whether, upon drawal of samples for re-testing, the petitioner was entitled to seek provisional release of the seized goods.

Analysis: The Court noted that the petitioner had furnished the necessary bank guarantees and bonds and that, once sampling was undertaken, there was no reason in principle to deny provisional release if the prescribed requirements were otherwise satisfied. The direction for re-testing did not extinguish the petitioner's right to seek release in accordance with prior orders and the applicable requirements.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to seek provisional release of the seized goods upon drawal of samples, subject to compliance with the prescribed requirements.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed to the extent of directing fresh sampling for re-testing and permitting the petitioner to pursue provisional release in accordance with the applicable requirements.

Ratio Decidendi: A re-testing facility described by departmental guidelines as a trade facilitation measure should ordinarily be granted, and denial is permissible only on reasonable grounds recorded in writing; where such grounds are absent, fresh sampling for re-testing cannot be refused.

---