Concurrent factual findings on transit mismatch justified seizure and security demand, with no substantial question of law arising.

Concurrent findings that the transit declaration did not match the vehicle carrying the consignment, that the required declaration did not accompany the goods, and that supporting documents were not produced justified the seizure and demand for security. The revisional court found no illegality or perversity in those factual findings, and held that no substantial question of law arose for interference. The seizure order and security demand were therefore upheld, and the revision was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seizure of goods and demand of security were liable to be interfered with in revision in view of the discrepancy in the transit declaration form and the concurrent findings recorded by the authorities below.

Analysis: The goods were intercepted on the basis of a mismatch between the vehicle number shown in the transit declaration form and the vehicle actually carrying the consignment. The authorities found that the relevant declaration form did not accompany the goods as required, that no supporting documents for the disputed goods were produced, and that the vehicle had been intercepted on a route different from the one disclosed. The Tribunal affirmed these factual findings. The revisional court found no illegality or infirmity in the orders below and held that the findings were concurrent findings of fact. In such a situation, no substantial question of law arose for interference.

Conclusion: The seizure order and the demand for security were upheld, and the revision failed.

Final Conclusion: The revision was dismissed because the challenge raised no substantial question of law against the concurrent factual findings supporting seizure and security demand.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings of fact, absent illegality or perversity, do not warrant revisional interference and do not give rise to a substantial question of law.

---