It seems to me that the conditions under section 10 and under section 11 are different. The person charged with the enforcement of the Act goes into premises to see whether the seed kept there is tainted, and takes a sample. There is nothing to suggest impropriety on the part of anybody. But, in the case of section 11, the purchaser complains, practically, that he has been defrauded, that the seed sold to him is not up to the standard set by the Act, and he asks the person charged with the enforcement of the Act to take a sample. There seems to me no reason why that person should be compelled to pay for the seeds.