Bombay HC raps Customs for Resisting Re-Test, orders Fresh Sampling of Seized Cashew Imports [Read Order]

The dispute arose after Customs and the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) seized consignments of cashew nuts in March and April 2025. Earlier tests conducted at an FSSAI-accredited laboratory in Maharashtra had favoured the importer, but the latest samples were referred to a Kerala laboratory, which reported adversely against the petitioner. Contesting this, the petitioner sought re-testing through fresh samples under the 2017 guidelines, which describe re-testing as a facilitation measure not to be ordinarily denied.

Counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Sujay Kantawala, argued that the Customs authorities acted unreasonably in denying re-testing, despite the guidelines under Public Notice No.97/2017. He emphasised that there was no material difference between the earlier detained goods and the present seized goods.

On the other hand, Customs’ counsel Jitendra Mishra contended that the re-testing request was time-barred as it was not made within ten days of the first test results. He further argued that re-tests can only be done on remnants of previously tested samples, not fresh samples, and that the current test was conducted to determine whether the cashews were roasted—a factor critical to import classification.

The bench observed that while the guidelines require substantial compliance, they cannot be treated as rigid statutory rules. The judges noted that the facility of re-testing is meant to promote trade facilitation and should only be denied in exceptional cases, supported by recorded reasons. The court questioned why the samples were referred to a Kerala laboratory despite several accredited laboratories being available in Maharashtra.

The court found the Customs’ resistance to re-testing inconsistent with the government’s stated policies. It stressed that such facilitation measures cannot be reduced to empty promises on paper and directed that fresh samples be drawn within five days in the presence of the petitioner’s representative and sent to the CRCL, New Delhi, a government-run laboratory. CRCL has been requested to provide its report within one month.

The court allowed the writ petition, directing re-testing at CRCL. It further clarified that the petitioner would be entitled to provisional release of goods upon meeting prescribed requirements. While considering costs against Customs, the court refrained from imposing them, expressing hope that the authorities would align with the government’s policies of ease of doing business in future cases.

The division bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna held that the Customs authorities’ resistance to re-testing contradicted the trade facilitation measures outlined in Public Notice No.97 of 2017 and ‘Ease of Doing Business’ policies said to have been adopted by the Government.

It was strongly remarked that, “We were considering the imposition of costs. However, in the hope that the Customs Department will hereafter contribute to the promotion of the Government of India’s policy of ‘ease of doing business’, we refrain from imposing any costs in this matter.”

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates