Third re-testing is not an absolute right where existing test reports allow the authority to decide under the governing public notice.

A petitioner seeking a third re-testing of seized shawls could not demand it as a matter of right where the first test indicated hair of Tibetan antelope and the further test obtained at the petitioner's instance was inconclusive. Under the governing public notice, the competent authority could consider the test and re-test reports and order a second re-test only if it was unable to decide between the existing results. The authority therefore retained discretion to assess the reports, and the request for further testing was declined. The matter was also noted to have been pursued belatedly with a delaying effect on the proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to a third re-testing of the seized shawls and consequential interference with the show-cause proceedings.

Analysis: The first test report indicated the presence of hair of Tibetan antelope, and a further test obtained at the petitioner's instance was inconclusive. The governing public notice provided that the competent authority may consider the test and re-test results, and may order a second re-test only where it is unable to decide between the first test and the re-test results. The right to seek a further test was not absolute, and the request for a third test could not be insisted upon merely because the petitioner expected a favourable report. The authority had discretion to appreciate the existing reports, and the petition was also viewed as having been pursued belatedly with a delaying effect on the proceedings.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to a third re-testing as a matter of right, and the request for interference was rejected.

---