Article 226 jurisdiction cannot resolve disputed facts regarding authorized representation during customs sampling.

The petitioner-importer challenged the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence’s seizure of imported industrial oil under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.

The goods had been declared as “Industrial Oil” under Customs Tariff Heading 27101990.

Samples were collected and tested by Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited (MRPL) for 11 parameters.

The respondents alleged that the goods had been adulterated to enable classification under a different tariff heading and thereby circumvent import-policy restrictions.

The petitioner contended that its alleged authorised representative, Shri Meet Madhukant Shah, was not authorised to remain present when the first sample was collected on 09 October 2025.

It admitted, however, that he was present when the subsequent sampling was conducted on 21/24 November 2025.

The respondents maintained that the sampling was lawful, conducted container-wise in the presence of the concerned representatives, and recorded in panchnamas.

The Court noted that the issue was substantially covered by its earlier decision in Special Civil Application No. 16799 of 2025 and allied matters, decided on 09 March 2026.

Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution with the seizure of the imported industrial oil under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, on the basis of the petitioner’s challenge to the sampling process?

Whether the alleged absence or lack of authorisation of the petitioner’s representative during the first sampling constituted a ground to invalidate the sampling, test reports, or consequential customs action?

Whether the MRPL test reports, including the second report dated 26 December 2025, supported the respondents’ case that the declared industrial oil did not meet the prescribed parameters?

The Court considered Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, which empowers customs authorities to seize goods reasonably believed to be liable to confiscation.

It applied the constitutional principle that the High Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, ordinarily will not adjudicate disputed questions of fact requiring evidentiary examination.

The Court also considered the definition of “adulteration” under Section 2(a) of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005, issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

The Court followed its earlier decision in Special Civil Application No. 16799 of 2025 and allied matters, dated 09 March 2026, where it had examined similar MRPL test reports and parameters relating to industrial oil and upheld the customs authorities’ decision.

The Court held that the petitioner’s contention regarding the first sampling raised a disputed question of fact.

The respondents asserted that Shri Meet Madhukant Shah was present, and his presence was recorded in the report signed by the panchas.

Further, the petitioner accepted that the same representative was present during the subsequent sampling.

Such factual controversy could not appropriately be resolved in writ proceedings under Article 226.

Independently, the second MRPL report dated 26 December 2025 indicated that the declared industrial oil also failed to satisfy the relevant parameters.

Since the Court had already examined materially identical parameters and test reports in its earlier judgment and upheld the customs authorities’ action, the alleged irregularity concerning the first sampling did not justify interference with the seizure or related proceedings.

It declined to interfere with the customs authorities’ action because the challenge involved disputed facts regarding the presence and authorisation of the representative, and the MRPL test reports independently failed to support the petitioner’s declaration of the goods as industrial oil.

The writ petition was accordingly rejected, with no further relief granted.