M/S Akee International vs Deputy Commissioner Of Customs And Ors

$~75
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of Decision: 16 April 2026
+ W.P.(C) 5063/2026 & CM APPL. 24816/2026
M/S AKEE INTERNATIONAL
BEHIND NAI MATA MANDIR, THATHAR ROAD,
NEAR NASHA MUKTI KENDRA, DELHI ROAD, AMER,
JAIPUR-302028 (RAJASTHAN)
THROUGH ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR
SHRI AAKIB MAJID MIR
..... PETITIONER
Through: Mr. Mir Akhtar Hussain, Ms. Sonia
Goswami and Mr. Rakesh Kumar
Pant, Advs.
Versus
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
(AIR CARGO EXPORT),
NEW CUSTOM HOUSE, NEAR IOI AIRPORT,
NEW DELHI-110037
..... RESPONDENT NO. 1
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
(Air Cargo Export),
New Custom House, Near IGI Airport,
New Delhi-110037
…… RESPONDENT NO. 2
3. UNION OF INDIA
Through Secretary
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:20.04.2026
16:29:08
W.P.(C) 5063/2026 Page 1 of 7

(Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs)
Room No 46, North Block,
New Delhi-110001
Through Standing Counsel, Union of India
….. RESPONDENT NO. 3
Through: Mr Premtosh K Mishra, CGSC with
Mr Shrey Sharma, Mr Anubhav
Upadhyay, Mr Arpit Bamal, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J.
CM APPL. 24817/2026 ( Exemption )
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 5063/2026
1. Heard.
2. The prayer in the petition read thus:
“(1) Quashing the Show Cause Notice No.09/CLM/AC/Export Shed/ACE/2024
dated 25.01.2024 issued by the respondent no. 2 against the petitioner and the
consequent proceedings initiated by and pending before the respondent no. 1.
(2) quashing the order/notice dated 24.02.2026 declining written
request/representation dated 15.04.2025 for re-testing of the two seized shawls.
(3) as a consequence to the quashing of the impugned Notice and proceedings,
this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 1 to get the
impugned shawls tested by some approved BIS lab conducting the forensic
testing of the Pashmina and Shahtoosh material as per Amendment No. 1 to
IS17269:2021 Textile-Identification, Labeling and Marking of Pashmina
Products (First Revision).
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:20.04.2026
16:29:08
W.P.(C) 5063/2026 Page 2 of 7

(4) declare that reliance on WII lab report by the respondent no. 1 as arbitrary
and unsustainable.”
th
3. The petitioner was served with a Show-Cause Notice dated 25
January, 2024, wherein the shawls which were sought to be exported,
samples of which were drawn and sent for analysis. The first report of the
analysis reads as under:
“Based on morphological features and standard microscopic hair
characteristics (Cutocular and Medullary patterns) as per protocols and
comparison with the reference material, it is concluded that shawls marked
by us F-4357/1-2 and F-4357/2-2, sent vide above reference, contain hair of
Tibetan antelope (Panthelops hodgsonii).”
4. The said report is issued by the Wildlife Institute of India (WII). The
report analysis speaks of containing hair of the Tibetan Antelope, which is
an endangered species in the shawls, which are sought to be exported by the
petitioner.
5. Since the petitioner was not in agreement, he chose to have the second
test in the matter and thus accordingly, a second test report was drawn at the
behest of the petitioner, which is inconclusive.
th
6. The said test report, is dated 08 September, 2022, which reads as
under:
“we are not sure whether DNA analysis is possible or not from the processed/
finished products. Still, we can make an attempt. However, it is an invasive
procedure as we need to cut down one or two shawls into small pieces for DNA
analysis. ZSI would seek a written consent/ permission through proper
channels from the competent authorities for undertaking the said investigation.
Until, we receive formal permission through a letter addressed to DZSI, we
won't be able to start the investigation procedure. However, morphological
analysis can be expedited.”
7. The petitioner, since was not satisfied with the aforesaid, has
approached the respondent seeking against re-testing of the sample after he
was served with the notice in the said proceedings by the authority.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:20.04.2026
16:29:08
W.P.(C) 5063/2026 Page 3 of 7

8. The request of the petitioner, since was turned down, same has
prompted the petitioner to approach this Court seeking quashing of the
th th
Show-Cause Notice dated 25 January, 2024, and the order dated 24
th
February, 2026, declining the petitioner’s request for re-testing dated 15
April, 2025.
9. It is the case of the petitioner that in the interest of compliance with
Principles of Natural Justice, it is necessary that the re-testing, as sought by
the petitioner for the third time should have been permitted in the light of the
th
procedure as laid down in the Public Notice No. 97/2017 dated 28 July,
2017.
10. According to him, when the rules itself provides for the re-testing to
be done in the case like, the one in hand, the petitioner ought not have been
denied an opportunity of re-testing.
11. In addition to the above, the petitioner has sought support from the
judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of “ Katyal Industries
vs. Union of India ”, 2017 (346) E.L.T. 218 (All.), Writ Tax No. 8 of 2012
decided on 24.01.2012, so as to claim that in a similar set of facts and
circumstances, the grant of re-testing was quite justified.
th
12. Furthermore, our attention is also invited to the order dated 28 April,
2023, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in a similar matter arising
out of very same issue, being W.P.(C) 4570/2023 and 4602/2023.
13. As such, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
in compliance with the directives of the respondent as reflected in the
Notification/Public Notice referred to above, the third testing is required to
be granted.
14. As against the above, the learned counsel appearing for the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:20.04.2026
16:29:08
W.P.(C) 5063/2026 Page 4 of 7

respondent, i.e., Union of India, claims that the re-testing, once already
granted at the behest of the petitioner, cannot be re-allowed unless there is a
satisfaction to that effect recorded by the authority who is deciding the case
in hand.
15. According to him, the claim in the petition is premature.
16. He would further claim that the petitioner has approached this Court
at belated stage.
17. Having appreciated the respective submissions, it is apparent that the
th
first test report was of 19 August, 2021. It was for the petitioner to apply
for re-testing within a period of three months. However, it appears that even
at a belated stage, the request of the petitioner for re-testing was granted, and
the report that was received, was inconclusive.
th
18. In such an eventuality, the circular dated 28 July, 2017, issued by the
respondent Customs authorities, provides for re-testing in case, if the
authority, who is dealing with the issue is satisfied that there needs to be
second re-test.
th
19. Reliance can be placed on Clause (f) of the Notification dated 28
July, 2017, which reads thus:
“f) The competent authority will consider the results of the re-test without
prejudice to the results of the first test. In case there is a variation in the results
of the first test and the re-test, the competent authority will take the decision
relying upon either of the tests specifying the grounds in writing for the
decision so taken. In case the competent authority is unable to decide whether
to rely upon the first or the re-test results, then it may order a second re-test
provided the consignment is still within the customs control. However, this
option will not be resorted to in every case of variation between the first test
and re-test results.”
20. The fact remains that the petitioner intend to have the third testing
report, as he is expecting that the third testing report might come in his
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:20.04.2026
16:29:08
W.P.(C) 5063/2026 Page 5 of 7

favour.
21. Even if such report is there, the report by itself cannot be accepted to
be a final proof in the matter of concluding that, the shawls were not made
out from a material which is otherwise banned item. In our opinion, it is for
the adjudicating authority to appreciate the test reports and accept the test
report with which it is convinced of.
22. The fact remains that there are already two test reports on record and
the circular vests discretion with the authority to call for the third test report
at an appropriate stage.
23. In our opinion, the said position is yet to arrive in the matter, as the
petitioner is not permitting the respondent authority to proceed with the
matter and has approached this Court with a request to direct the re-testing
for the third time, which otherwise cannot be done at the mere instance of
the petitioner.
24. Apart from above, the fact remains that the second test report is of
2022, whereas for the third time the petitioner is seeking again re-test in
2025. For all these three years, there was no effort on the part of the
petitioner to get the proceedings decided either way. Rather, the application
in our opinion, as rightly so pointed out by the learned counsel for the
respondent, appears to have been moved with an intention to delay the
proceedings.
25. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that no case for exercise
of extraordinary jurisdiction is made out.
26. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. However, this will not
preclude the authority from looking into the case of the petitioner as to
whether the facts and circumstances of the case requires a third testing in
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:20.04.2026
16:29:08
W.P.(C) 5063/2026 Page 6 of 7

th
view of the procedure laid down in the circular dated 28 July, 2017.
NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J
(JUDGE)
AJAY DIGPAUL, J
(JUDGE)
APRIL 16, 2026/DM/ST
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:20.04.2026
16:29:08
W.P.(C) 5063/2026 Page 7 of 7