TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1961 (9) TMI 1
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the petitioner that the aforesaid bags of betel nuts had been seized because the authorities had reasonable grounds for believing that the said betel nuts had been imported into India without payment of proper Customs duty and without a valid import trade licence. The said Superintendent called upon the petitioner to submit evidence as to how the petitioner had acquired the said betel nuts. By a letter, dated May 27, 1954, the petitioner supplied to the said Superintendent all particulars relating to the alleged purchase of the bags of betel nuts by him. 2.Not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner, the Land Customs Authorities served on the petitioner a notice, dated August 14, 1954. under section 5 of the Land Customs A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs. His Lordship, therefore, set aside the order of confiscation and directed the authorities to re-determine the matter according to law. Thus ended the first chapter of the proceeding against the petitioner. 5.The second chapter of the proceeding against the petitioner started with a letter, dated August 10, 1957, from the Superintendent, Preventive Service, calling upon the petitioner to contact him for the purpose of drawing samples from the seized bags of betel nuts. That notice apparently was sent under a mis-conception, because prior to the issue of the notice the bags of betel nuts had been sold under the previous order of confiscation. In these circumstances, no further samples from t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uiry by the Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs the petitioner also relied upon an opinion by the District Agriculture Officer, Silchar, who was of the opinion that there was no difference between betel nuts grown in Surma Valley and those grown in the adjoining areas of East Pakistan. The petitioner wanted that the betel nuts seized from the petitioner's custody be examined by the said Agriculture Officer and his opinion obtained on the subject matter of the dispute. The prayer of the petitioner to have some of the nuts examined by the said District Agriculture Officer was refused by the Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs. By his order, dated April 25, 1958, the Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs disbelieved th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oy Mukherjee might have been an excellent argument in appeal but I cannot make much of this argument in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Principal of the Assam Agricultural College must be deemed to be a responsible person. If he had no knowledge of the art or science, by which the local origin of betel nuts can be determined he was likely to have refused to pass any opinion on the samples sent to him. The fact that he gave such opinion inclines me to believed that he has knowledge of the art or science by which the local origin of betel nuts can be determined. If in evaluating the evidence, the Collector attached more importance to the opinion of the said Principal of the Agricultural College than to the other opin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to do so. Be that as it may, I have already observed that it is not for me, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to substitute my own opinion in preference to the opinion of the Collector of Land Customs, by an independent valuation of the evidence on the record. For the reasons aforesaid, I repel the first branch of the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 9.Turning now to the other grievance of the petitioner, namely, that he was not given an opportunity to obtain opinion from the District Agriculture Officer of Silchar, on samples to be taken from the seized goods, I hold that the grievance was one of substance but his grievance cannot be remedied now. At the point of time when the petitioner asked ....