[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
M/S. Skyline Global Traders Through ... vs Union Of India on 13 March, 2026
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3491/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3491 of 2026
=============================================
M/S. SKYLINE GLOBAL TRADERS THROUGH BRIJESH KUMAR SINGH
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK P MODH(5344) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR UTKARSH SHARMA, FOR
MR PRADIP D BHATE(1523) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 13/03/2026
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Hardik P. Modh,
appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the matter is
squarely covered by the common judgment and order passed
by this Court dated 09.03.2026 in Special Civil Application No.
16799 of 2025 and allied matters. Thus, it is urged that while
dismissing those writ petitions, the directions with regard to
filing an application seeking re-export of the goods may also
be passed in the present matter. It is further urged that if the
petitioner files any application for re-export of the goods, the
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence may consider the same
and pass an appropriate order on such application.
2. As mentioned by the learned advocate Mr.Modh, on an
identical issue and facts, this Court in the common judgment
and order dated 09.03.2026 passed in Special Civil Application
No. 16799 of 2025 and allied matters has dismissed the writ
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3491/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2026
undefined
petitions seeking release of the seized industrial oil by
observing thus:
46. Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles enunciated by
the Supreme Court, we have attempted to distinguish the case
of the petitioners for the following reasons.
47. Significantly, in the Test Reports in the case of Gastrade
International (supra), the Apex Court has recorded that
there was no opinion and finding expressed that the imported
goods are "most akin" to HSD, which is not the issue in the
Test Reports in question. In the first test report of CRCL,
Visakhapatnam, out of 18 parameters tested, except for the
parameters relating to flash point, distillation recovery and
sulphur, the report categorically records that the sample is
mainly composed of diesel fraction, is adulterated with lighter
hydrocarbons, and is most "akin to HFHSD (IS 16861) /
adulterated HFHSD". The diesel fraction is found to be
between 95% to 98%). Thus, out of 21 parameters, the 18
parameters tested by CRCL, Visakhapatnam and MRPL, there
is a clear opinion by the laboratory that the sample meets all
characteristics of ADF and HFHSD, except the flash point,
which is lowered by mixing lighter hydrocarbons. In this
context, we may refer to the definition of 'adulteration' as
supplied in the 'Malpractices Order,2005'. It reads thus:
"2(a) "adulteration" means [presence of marker in motor
spirit and high speed diesel and/or] [Inserted by
Notification No. G.S.R. 18(E) dated 12.1.2007 (w.e.f.
21.12.2005).] the introduction of any foreign substance
into motor spirit or high speed diesel illegally or
unauthorisedly with the result that the product does not
conform to the requirements of the Bureau of Indian
Standards specifications number IS 2796 and IS 1460 for
motor spirit and high speed diesel respectively or any
other requirement notified by the Central Government
from time to time;"
Thus, any foreign substance, which is blended in high speed
diesel illegally or unauthorizedly, which ultimate results into
failure of requirements of BIS specifications IS 1460 is an
adulteration.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3491/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2026
undefined
48. In the instant case, there is a definite conclusion that the
flash point, which is one of the most important parameters as
emphasized by the Supreme Court, has been lowered by the
use of lighter hydrocarbons and the product is therefore
characterized as adulterated HFHSD. No such clear and
unambiguous opinion was rendered by any of the three
laboratories in the case of Gastrade International(supra)
and also by the expert, who was examined during the inquiry.
This Court while placing reliance on this decision,had directed
for release of seized distillate marine fuel vide decision in case
of Noya International(supra), on which heavy reliance is placed
by the petitioner. We may clarify that in the case of those
petitioners, the Test Reports of CRCL, Vizag were considered,
which were ambiguous in nature.
49. The petitioners have also placed reliance on the
communication dated 04.11.2025. The same is written in
response to the clarification sought by the Assistant
Commissioner, Kandla relating to the Test Reports of CRCL,
Vizag in case of goods of importer M/s. Prajakt Agro Industries.
In view of the specific findings of the laboratories in case of the
present petitioners, the said communication cannot come to
their rescue. However, we do not agree with the submissions,
of the respondent department of discarding the clarificatory
communications for the reason that the Director of the Central
Revenues Control Laboratory functioning under the Central
Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs has not been shown to
lack the authority to issue such clarification. In the present
case, the respondent cannot disown the letters/ clarifications,
particularly in view of the fact that no communication has been
placed before this Court indicating that any cautionary advice
has been issued to the Director restraining him from issuing
the clarification or suggesting him that he lacked the authority
to issue the same.
50. Thus, if the rule of the "most akin test" is applied, the
product declared by the petitioners as industrial oil is found to
be Automotive Diesel Fuel / HFHSD, which is a restricted
commodity. Hence, in view of the settled legal position laid
down in the cases of Om Prakash Bhatia (supra) and Raj
Grow Impex (supra), we are not inclined to set aside the
action of seizure of goods in question. Though, reliance is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3491/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2026
undefined
placed on the inculpatory statements of the
petitioners/importers before us by DRI, we have not expressed
any opinion in this regard, since the investigation is still in
progress.
51. We do not agree to the submissions advanced on behalf
of the petitioners that the laboratory test results are liable to
be discarded merely because the samples are tested in two
different laboratories. The petitioners have not questioned the
collection of the samples. Once the samples of the same
commodity are duly collected, they can be tested in different
laboratories, particularly when one laboratory may not be fully
equipped to undertake testing of all 21 parameters.
52. We have also noticed that DRI has acted positively in
releasing the seized goods by issuing NOC to 333 containers
based on favourable reports. The petitioners have not alleged
any mala fides against the officers of the DRI, who undertook
the sampling and testing process. The petitioners have not
challenged the test results. Hence, even if there are two or
more Test Reports from different laboratories, so long as they
conform to the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of
Gastrade International (supra) and test the parameters
prescribed under the relevant Indian Standards, such test
results cannot be discarded merely because they were
undertaken by different laboratories.
53. The product imported by the petitioners, if released, will
have a direct environmental impact affecting society at large.
In such circumstances, having regard to the nature of the
product, the Test Reports cannot be discarded merely because
different parameters were tested in two different laboratories.
Order in SCA Nos.1355/2026, 1356/2026 & 1357/2026 :
54. Since the petitioners did not cooperate with the
respondent authority in collecting a further sample to be sent
to Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited, we have
placed reliance on the report of CRCL, Visakhapatnam dated
28.11.2025, which is akin to the reports in the lead matter
being Special Civil Application No.16799 of 2025. Hence, on
two counts, the petitions are required to be dismissed - firstly,
on the basis of the Test Report of CRCL, Visakhapatnam; and
secondly, on account of the non-cooperation of the petitioners
in permitting the DRI to collect the sample and send the same
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3491/2026 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2026
undefined
to the MRPL.
Order in SCA No.1679/2026 :
55. The order passed in the lead matter shall apply to those
Bills of Entry where the report of CRCL, Visakhapatnam and
MRPL has already been received. In respect of the Bills of
Entry where the MRPL report is awaited, if the same
parameters and results, as recorded in other Bills of Entry
already considered by this Court are found, the action of the
DRI in seizing such consignments shall be treated as
appropriate.
56. All the captioned writ petitions, stand dismissed. Rule
discharged. No order as to costs. However, we clarify that in
case the petitioners file an application for re-export of goods,
the DRI shall consider the same, and pass appropriate orders
on such application.
3. Thus, the present writ petition is dismissed in light of the
aforesaid directions contained in the common oral judgment
and order dated 09.03.2026.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/-
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
MAHESH/07
