9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (6) TMI 205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 18-2-1988 confirming his earlier order dated 14-11-1986. Proceedings were instituted against the appellants herein on charges of mis-declaration in regard to export of full chrome wool sheep grain finished lining leather in March, 1986 resulting in an order of adjudication at the hands of the Collector of Customs, Cochin, dated 14-11-1986 under which he ordered duty @ 15% for the entire goods covered by six Shipping bills specified in the impugned order besides levying personal penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 the 'Act' for short. The appellants herein preferred appeal against the original order of adjudication before the Tribunal and the tribunal on consideration of the entire matter disposed of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ummons to the expert, but no body from the CLRI was made available for cross-examination by the appellants. Theadjudicat-ingauthority having regard to this aspect of the matter has observed in the impugned order as follows :- "However, in view of the observation of the CEGAT, an attempt was made to call personnel from CLRI. The CLRI vide their letter dated 22-12-1987 have politely regretted their inability to appear before any tribunal or other authority to give evidence. This is-as per condition appearing in their test report, which clearly says that opinion is technical and academic and not intended for publicity, advertisement and legal purposes. Hence, the adjudicating authority is helpless in fulfilling the request of the party to cro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l'is a research Institution of the Government of India and particularly in matters where opinion of the CLR! by analysis of samples is sought for, the CLRI while giving the report should also make it convenient to send one of its officers to testify when summoned for cross-examination. The condition in the test report that the same is academic and cannot be used for legal purposes obviously indicates that even if the expert opinion is found to be. erroneous or wrong, the expert cannot.be proceeded against for damages in any Court oT Law. The report of the CLRI cannot betaken as a conclusive piece of evidence when the same-is challenged and sought to be disproved in cross-examination because the expert however competent j?e, might be cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aversty of the principles of natural justice. It would be relevant to note that in regard to the certificate or opinion given by the CLRI in the instant case, no conclusiveness is attached to the same nor examination of such expert expressly excluded under any Statute. Reports of Government Scientific experts such as Chemical Examiner, Officers of the Mint or Indian Security Press, Public Analyst, Chief Inspector of Explosives, Director of Finger Print Bureau and Director of a Central or a State Forensic Science Laboratory, and Serologist to the Government are normally used as evidence before Courts in. Inquiry or trial but if the Courts think it fit the Courts may summon and examine any such expert as to the subject matter of his report. E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
