Soumitra Pal, J. - (1.) The Court: In the writ petition the Petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the Commissioner of Customs (Port), Respondent No. 1 to send the samples of both the Patchouli Oil Standard (Natural Essential Oil) and Patchouli Oil Pure -SPX (Natural Essential Oil) for retesting the percentage of Patchouli Alcohol content to the customs Central Research Laboratory at Delhi and at National Test House Kolkata/Delhi at the cost of the Petitioner and for release of the goods of the Petitioner on the basis of declaration made by the Petitioner.
(2.) It is submitted by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner that the Respondents authorities have withheld the release of the goods and have raised a dispute regarding the valuation on the ground that both the oils are of the same standard and had sent for chemical test. It appears that there is a chemical test. However, the Petitioner is not satisfied with such test and thus, wants to have it retested. Learned advocate for the Respondents submits that the test done was proper.
(3.) In my view, the authority should have granted permission to the Petitioner for testing the samples of the imported goods for the second time. Needless to say that while a second report may improve the case of the Petitioner, it will not make the existing report non est. If the Petitioner is given opportunity of testing the samples once again, no prejudice will be caused to the authorities. In this connection my attention has been drawn to the Apex Court decision in Bombay Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Union of India, reported at : 1995 (77) E.L.T. 32 (S.C.). In my view, the authority can be relied on for making an order directing the authority to take steps for retesting the samples of the imported goods.;