Writ review of confiscation evidence: High Court refused to reweigh expert opinions and rejected sample-examination challenge.

In a writ challenge to confiscation, the High Court declined to reappraise the relative weight of competing expert and trade opinions, holding that such evidentiary assessment lay with the customs authority and that the initial burden remained on the department to establish import from Pakistan. The Court also held that the complaint of denial of an independent examination of samples could not invalidate the confiscation order where no sample remained available, making the grievance largely academic rather than curative. The writ petition therefore failed, with no jurisdictional or procedural ground shown for interference.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the confiscation order was vitiated because the customs authority preferred the opinion of one expert over the trade opinions relied upon by the petitioner; (ii) Whether the petitioner was denied a meaningful opportunity to obtain an independent examination of samples by the District Agriculture Officer, and whether that alleged denial invalidated the confiscation order.

Issue (i): Whether the confiscation order was vitiated because the customs authority preferred the opinion of one expert over the trade opinions relied upon by the petitioner;

Analysis: The challenge went to the appreciation of evidence. The Court held that in writ jurisdiction it would not substitute its own view for that of the customs authority on the weight to be attached to competing opinions. Although the Court expressed concern about exclusive reliance on an unexplained expert opinion, it held that the authority had to determine the factual issue on the material before it and that the initial burden remained on the customs authorities to establish import of the seized goods from Pakistan.

Conclusion: The preference given to the expert opinion did not vitiate the order, and this contention failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was denied a meaningful opportunity to obtain an independent examination of samples by the District Agriculture Officer, and whether that alleged denial invalidated the confiscation order;

Analysis: The Court accepted that, if samples had been available, refusal of the request would have raised a serious grievance. However, by the time the request was pressed, the goods had already been sold and no sample remained either with the petitioner or with the department. In those circumstances, the alleged denial could not be effectively remedied and became substantially academic rather than real.

Conclusion: The absence of samples meant that this objection did not invalidate the confiscation order.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the Court found no jurisdictional or procedural ground to interfere with the confiscation order, and the connected matter was also governed by the same result.

Ratio Decidendi: In writ proceedings, the Court will not reappraise the relative weight of competing evidence in a confiscation matter, and a complaint about denial of further expert examination cannot succeed where no sample remains available for such examination.

---