Representative sampling of Khandsari upheld where seized samples exceeded the threshold and no objection was raised at sampling.

Samples drawn from three bags of Khandsari were treated as representative because the seizure occurred in the appellant's presence, the samples covered different varieties at his instance, and the analysed samples exceeded the prescribed sucrose threshold. No contemporaneous objection was raised to the sampling method or in the written reply. On that basis, the Collector was entitled to infer that the remaining stock also fell within the controlled sugar category and that the permitted quantity was being held without licence. The confiscation order was therefore supported by material and was not arbitrary, and the seized stock was upheld as liable to confiscation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the samples taken from 3 out of 80 bags of Khandsari could be treated as representative samples so as to sustain confiscation for breach of the licensing restrictions.

Analysis: The goods were seized in the appellant's presence, the samples were taken from three different varieties of Khandsari at his instance, and all the analysed samples showed sucrose content above the prescribed threshold. No objection was raised at the time of sampling or in the written reply that the samples were unrepresentative. In the circumstances, the Collector could reasonably infer that the remaining stock also consisted of sugar within the meaning of the Licensing Order and that more than the permitted quantity was being kept without licence. The confiscation order was therefore based on material and was not arbitrary.

Conclusion: The samples were treated as representative, and the confiscation of the seized stock was upheld against the appellant.

---