2009 (8) TMI 670 - HC - Customs

Silk Yarn Expert opinion - the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence of the Central Government checked the Truck of Silk yarn. The intelligence department called two experts who identified that three packets were of the Indian origin. However, both the experts opined that the remaining four bundles were Chinese origin. So, four bundles were seized and confiscated. Collector (Appeals) who has accepted the plea of the assessee by observing that the silk yarn in question were of the Indian origin. Tribunal also allowed it. Held that - No question of law is emerging from the Tribunal s order. Hence, no interference is required with the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is hereby sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein.

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure and confiscation of silk yarn bundles - Indian vs. Chinese origin.
2. Appeal before Collector (Appeals) and Tribunal.
3. Reliance on experts' opinion.
4. Lack of supporting evidence by the department.
5. Finality of Tribunal's decision.
6. Question of law and interference with Tribunal's order.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the seizure and confiscation of silk yarn bundles from a truck, with experts opining that some bundles were of Indian origin and others of Chinese origin.

2. The opposite party appealed before the Collector (Appeals) and then the Tribunal, which upheld the Collector's decision based on evidence that the silk yarn was of Indian origin, produced by local producers in Malda.

3. The Tribunal noted that while experts' opinions are relevant under the Evidence Act, they are not conclusive proof and require supporting evidence. The department solely relied on experts' opinions without verifying the evidence provided by the opposite party.

4. The department's failure to verify the evidence presented by the opposite party, such as the Challan and purchase particulars from local producers, was criticized by the court. The court highlighted the importance of collecting supporting evidence rather than relying solely on expert opinions.

5. The court emphasized the finality of the Tribunal's decision as a fact-finding authority, citing the precedent set in the case of Kamla Ganpati v. Controller of Estate Duty. Generally, no interference is required in such cases unless a question of law arises.

6. Since no question of law emerged from the Tribunal's order, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, affirming the sustainability of the Tribunal's order based on the evidence and reasons provided therein.