Substantial question of law absent where diversion of imported coils and use of local material were upheld on evidence.

The challenge to denial of Notification No. 48/99-Cus. failed because the request for re-testing was not raised before the Tribunal or original authority and could not be entertained in second appeal. On the merits, the Tribunal's findings that the imported SS coils had been diverted and that the exported utensils were not manufactured from the imported material were supported by the CRCL report and disclosed no legal infirmity. As no substantial question of law arose, interference with the Tribunal's decision was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal raised any substantial question of law in relation to denial of the benefit of Notification No. 48/99-Cus. and the finding that imported SS coils had been diverted and the export goods were not manufactured from the imported material.

Analysis: The challenge based on non-acceptance of the request for re-testing could not be entertained because it had not been raised before the Tribunal or the original authority. On the merits, the Tribunal had considered the controversy whether the imported material was diverted and whether the exported utensils were made from locally procured material. The Tribunal's reliance on the CRCL report and its finding that the departmental case was proved did not disclose any legal infirmity warranting interference in second appeal.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose, and the challenge to the Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal failed.

---