https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790301 The power to order a further re-test of seized shawls under the applicable public notice was discretionary, not a right available to the petitioner. Because one report indicated Tibetan antelope hair and a later petitioner-requested report was inconclusive, the adjudicating authority had to evaluate the existing material and decide whether another test was necessary. The petitioner could not compel a third re-testing merely in the hope of a favourable result, and the refusal to direct further testing was not shown to warrant writ interference. The challenge was also treated as belated and aimed at delaying the proceedings. en-us Thu, 16 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Apr 2026 09:45:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790301 The power to order a further re-test of seized shawls under the applicable public notice was discretionary, not a right available to the petitioner. Because one report indicated Tibetan antelope hair and a later petitioner-requested report was inconclusive, the adjudicating authority had to evaluate the existing material and decide whether another test was necessary. The petitioner could not compel a third re-testing merely in the hope of a favourable result, and the refusal to direct further testing was not shown to warrant writ interference. The challenge was also treated as belated and aimed at delaying the proceedings. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 16 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790301