The Bombay High Court held that the Customs’ refusal to allow re-testing of the imported cashew nuts was inconsistent with the Public Notice No. 97/2017, which treats re-testing as a trade facilitation measure and generally not to be denied except on reasonable grounds recorded in writing. The Court clarified that these guidelines are not statutory rules requiring strict compliance but must be applied with fairness and flexibility.
The Court also noted the inconsistency in sending samples to Kerala when capable laboratories existed in Maharashtra and criticized the Customs’ rigid approach as contrary to the government’s “Ease of Doing Business” policy. Accordingly, the Court directed the Customs authorities to draw fresh samples from the seized goods within five days and send them to the Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRCL), New Delhi, for re-testing, with the report to be submitted within one month.
The Division Bench comprising Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna emphasized that re-testing is a trade facilitation measure and should ordinarily be permitted unless exceptional and reasonable grounds justify refusal. Such provisions aim to ensure a fair determination of the nature of goods, not to penalize or obstruct importers.
The Bench therefore directed FSSAI to coordinate the re-testing at the CRCL, New Delhi, and requested the laboratory to submit its report within a month. It further directed that the petitioner be allowed to seek provisional release of the goods in accordance with prior court orders.
Briefly, in this case, the petitioner, a proprietor of Trinity Argo Products, had imported consignments of cashew nuts through Nhava Sheva Port, which were seized by Customs authorities on the suspicion that the goods were unroasted cashew nuts, a prohibited import. Earlier, similar goods detained by Customs had been tested by an FSSAI-accredited laboratory in Maharashtra, which found them fit for human consumption. However, in this instance, the samples were sent to a Kerala laboratory, which issued an adverse report.
The petitioner requested a re-test under Public Notice No. 97/2017 (dated 28 July 2017), which provides re-testing as a trade facilitation measure. Customs authorities denied this request, arguing that it was made beyond the prescribed 10-day limit and that re-testing could only be done on remnants or duplicate sealed samples. Aggrieved by the refusal, the petitioner approached the Bombay High Court seeking a direction to draw fresh samples and conduct re-testing.
Appearances:
dvocates Dr. Sujay Kantawala, Aishwarya Kantawala, Ayushi Jha, and Jeffry Caleb, for the Petitioner/ Taxpayer
Advocates Jitendra Mishra, Sangeeta Yadav, and Akash Vijay, for the Respondents/ Revenue
