https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797534 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 does not extend to resolving disputed factual questions concerning an authorised representative's presence during customs sampling. The sampling report recorded the representative's presence, while the importer disputed his authority; subsequent sampling admittedly occurred in his presence. Laboratory testing found that the declared industrial oil failed prescribed parameters, and comparable testing standards had previously supported customs action. The seizure challenge was therefore not maintainable on the disputed sampling contention, and the customs action remained sustained. en-us Mon, 03 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Aug 2026 08:33:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797534 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 does not extend to resolving disputed factual questions concerning an authorised representative's presence during customs sampling. The sampling report recorded the representative's presence, while the importer disputed his authority; subsequent sampling admittedly occurred in his presence. Laboratory testing found that the declared industrial oil failed prescribed parameters, and comparable testing standards had previously supported customs action. The seizure challenge was therefore not maintainable on the disputed sampling contention, and the customs action remained sustained. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 03 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797534