Excise investigative powers over bonded warehouse goods include sampling, arrest on reasonable belief, and trade-panel analysis.

A fiscal statute aimed at preventing evasion of excise duty was read to include incidental investigative powers over bonded warehouse goods. Where there was bona fide suspicion of substitution of inferior tobacco, excise officers could take samples as a reasonable aid to inquiry, and the absence of a stock-weight discrepancy did not negate that power. The same statutory scheme also permitted arrest on reasonable belief that an offence under the Act had been committed. Use of a traders' panel to analyse the samples was treated as an investigative choice, not a jurisdictional defect, and the authorities' actions were upheld as within statutory power.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether excise had authority to take samples from tobacco stored in a bonded warehouse on suspicion of substitution of inferior goods; (ii) whether the authorities could arrest a person where they had reason to believe that an offence under the excise law had been committed; (iii) whether the use of a traders' panel to analyse the samples was unauthorised.

Issue (i): whether excise had authority to take samples from tobacco stored in a bonded warehouse on suspicion of substitution of inferior goods.

Analysis: The statutory scheme was held to be directed to preventing evasion of revenue and to enabling supervision of warehouse goods under the excise framework. The power to confiscate or seize suspected goods, together with the rule-making and inspection provisions, was held to include the lesser power of taking samples where bona fide suspicion arose that the goods in the warehouse had been substituted and the quality had changed though the weight entries remained intact. The sampling process was treated as a reasonable step in aid of investigation and not as an uncanalised exercise of power.

Conclusion: The excise authorities had authority to take samples in the circumstances, and the challenge failed.

Issue (ii): whether the authorities could arrest a person where they had reason to believe that an offence under the excise law had been committed.

Analysis: The arrest power was read from the express statutory provision empowering a Central Excise Officer to arrest a person whom he had reason to believe to be liable to punishment under the Act. Once suspected unauthorised substitution was within the statutory mischief, threatened arrest could not be interdicted merely because no stock discrepancy in weight was shown.

Conclusion: The authorities could arrest a person on the requisite reasonable belief, and the objection was rejected.

Issue (iii): whether the use of a traders' panel to analyse the samples was unauthorised.

Analysis: The choice of evidence for investigative purposes was left to the authorities. The method of obtaining expert opinion from a trade panel was held to be a matter of investigative procedure and not a jurisdictional defect in the exercise of statutory power.

Conclusion: The use of a traders' panel was not unauthorised, and the objection failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ appeals were found to be without merit because the impugned actions were within the statutory powers available to the excise authorities for preventing evasion and detecting unauthorised substitution in bonded warehouse goods.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a fiscal statute confers power to seize or confiscate suspected goods and the scheme is aimed at preventing evasion of duty, that power includes the lesser incidental authority to take samples and to adopt reasonable investigative measures, including arrest on reasonable belief of an offence.

---