Trade panel opinion may identify tobacco stock; clandestine removal justifies duty, confiscation and denial of dryage allowance.

Authorities may use a trade panel's opinion to identify tobacco in a warehouse when the stock records do not clearly establish its variety, provided the trader knows of the proceedings, participates through a representative, and is later given the opinion for objection. That use of expert opinion is not an illegal delegation of quasi-judicial power where the panel only assists on identification. Once clandestine removal and substitution of stock are found, the original quantity is treated as removed in breach of the rules, duty becomes payable on that quantity, dryage allowance is denied, and the substituted stock is liable to confiscation.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the authorities could rely on the opinion of a trade panel to determine the variety of tobacco found in the warehouse and whether such reliance amounted to illegal delegation of quasi-judicial power; (ii) whether, on the finding of clandestine removal and substitution of stock, the levy of duty, confiscation of the stock, and denial of dryage allowance were sustainable.

Issue (i): whether the authorities could rely on the opinion of a trade panel to determine the variety of tobacco found in the warehouse and whether such reliance amounted to illegal delegation of quasi-judicial power

Analysis: The stock card did not clearly establish the quality of the tobacco, and the dispute centred on the variety of tobacco actually found on inspection. The authorities sought the opinion of experienced local traders only to ascertain the nature of the tobacco, not to delegate the decision whether there had been removal or substitution. The panel's proceedings were known to the petitioner, his representative participated in them, and the petitioner was later supplied with the opinion and invited to object. In these circumstances, the use of the panel's opinion did not amount to illegality or denial of opportunity.

Conclusion: The challenge to the constitution and use of the trade panel was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether, on the finding of clandestine removal and substitution of stock, the levy of duty, confiscation of the stock, and denial of dryage allowance were sustainable

Analysis: Once the authorities found that the original stock had been clandestinely removed and replaced by another variety of tobacco, the claimed shortage could not be treated as mere dryage. On that finding, the original quantity was treated as having been removed in contravention of the rules, making duty payable on that quantity. The substituted stock was also liable to confiscation under the relevant rule dealing with goods removed or dealt with contrary to the rules.

Conclusion: The levy of duty, confiscation of the stock, and refusal of dryage allowance were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the findings of clandestine removal and substitution justified the excise demand and confiscatory action under the Central Excise Rules.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the authorities, after giving notice and hearing, find on evidence that bonded stock has been clandestinely removed and substituted, they may rely on expert trade opinion to identify the goods, deny dryage allowance, levy duty on the original quantity, and confiscate the substituted goods under the Central Excise Rules.

---