2023 (1) TMI 927 - HC - Customs

Seeking release of smuggled confiscated goods - Whether the Tribunal was justified in recording a finding that the fact that seized fabrics might have lost its importance due to storage for more than four years without there being any evidence on record to support that finding? - HELD THAT - The Appellant is not entitled to succeed even on the re-framed questions of law. Though the learned Counsel for the Appellant has sought to address us as to the various factual aspects, we have to keep in mind the scope of the appeal. Whether the goods seized under a panchanama were validly imported is a question of fact. It is settled that the scope of reversing an order of the Tribunal on a finding of fact is extremely limited and is restricted to ascertaining whether the finding of fact is demonstrably perverse or that it is not possible to reach such a finding and it is contrary to the record on the face of it. It is also settled that if a possible view is taken by the Tribunal based on the analysis of the factual material then a question of law would not arise. In the present case, the Commissioner has undertaken the exercise of tallying the details of the seized goods as per the panchanama and details of the goods as per the concerned Bills of Entry. The Commissioner found that they did not match and there are only six entries that are common between the two and therefore, it is clear that the seized goods are not the same as imported under the two Bills of Entry - Tribunal has taken a particular view on fact, which cannot be stated that as perverse. The endeavour of the Appellant is only to persuade us to take another view upon re-appreciating the same material on record. Once we find that the Tribunal's view cannot be stated to be perverse, no question of law arises for consideration and only questions of facts arise. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to Tribunal's order of confiscation of goods by Commissioner of Customs
- Discrepancy between seized goods and goods in Bills of Entry
- Tribunal's decision on validity of imported goods
- Tribunal's decision on loss of value of goods due to storage

Analysis:

1. The case involved a challenge by the Commissioner of Customs against the Tribunal's decision to reverse an order of confiscation of goods valued at Rs. 24,73,340 under the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal had found discrepancies between the seized goods and the goods described in the Bills of Entry, leading to the reversal of the original order of confiscation.

2. The Respondent had received a Show Cause Notice from the Commissioner of Customs regarding the confiscation of man-made fabrics of foreign origin. The Commissioner alleged that the goods were stored without proper documentation and were cleared for domestic consumption without payment of customs duty. After a panchanama, the Commissioner ordered confiscation and imposed penalties, which was challenged by the Respondent.

3. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Commissioner due to the lack of distinction between seized goods and goods in Bills of Entry. Upon re-examination, the Commissioner again ordered confiscation, but the Tribunal found the Commissioner's conclusion erroneous. The Tribunal held that the seized goods were validly imported, leading to the reversal of the confiscation order.

4. The substantial question of law raised in the Appeal questioned the Tribunal's finding on the loss of importance of seized fabrics due to storage without supporting evidence. The Court reframed the question and held that the Tribunal's decision on the validity of imported goods and the loss of value of goods due to storage were justifiable based on the evidence presented.

5. The High Court, after reviewing the record and decisions of the Commissioner and the Tribunal, found that the Appellant was not entitled to succeed even on the reframed questions of law. The Court emphasized the limited scope of reversing a Tribunal's finding of fact and upheld the Tribunal's decision as it was based on a possible view supported by factual material.

6. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the Tribunal's view on the facts of the case was not demonstrably perverse, and therefore, no question of law arose for consideration. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision on the validity of imported goods and the loss of value of goods due to storage, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.