9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 927X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The Show Cause Notice also called upon the Respondent to demonstrate why the penalty should not be imposed under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. The case of the Appellant was that an information was received that a container loaded of imported fabrics stored at godown situated at 19, D'souza Compound, Purna Village, Bhiwandi was without any document/proper record. Also, the goods were cleared from 100% export oriented unit for domestic consumption without payment of customs duty. The officers of the Marine and Preventive Wing of Customs (Preventive) Commissionerate visited the godown on 17 February 2003 and carried out a panchanama. According to the Appellant, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erroneous as it could not have been held that the confiscation of the entire seized goods was sustainable and that the conclusion that the seized goods may not be validly imported was not correct and proper. Accordingly, by the impugned order dated 1 November 2007, the Tribunal allowed the Appeal filed by the Respondents. Hence, the Appellant is before us by this Appeal. 7. The Appeal was admitted on 13 August 2008 on the following substantial question of law:- 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? 8. We have heard the learned Counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Tribunal based on the analysis of the factual material then a question of law would not arise. 10. 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. The Tribunal examined he same material. The Tribunal took a view that there was no dispute that the goods under the panchanama showed that the country of origin was Korea and Taiwan. The two Bills of Entry i.e. 000235 dated 2 Ja ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
