Customs appeal on MRP-sticker imports failed where concurrent findings showed contravention and no substantial question of law arose.

In an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, interference is limited to a substantial question of law, and a challenge directed only at concurrent factual findings is insufficient. Imported retail-pack goods were found without MRP stickers, and the proprietor's Section 108 statement supported the conclusion that the goods required MRP disclosure under the applicable import and packaging regime. On those facts, the lower authorities treated the import as contravening Sections 111(d) and 111(m), and the Tribunal found the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty reasonable. No substantial question of law arose, so the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, any substantial question of law arose from the orders confirming confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty for import of packaged goods without MRP stickers.

Analysis: The imported goods were admittedly sold in retail packs and were required to carry MRP declaration under the applicable import and packaging regime. The proprietor's statement under Section 108 supported the finding that the goods fell within the category requiring such disclosure. The show cause notice and adjudication proceeded on the basis that the packages were found without MRP stickers at the time of search, and the lower authorities held that the contravention attracted Section 111(d) and Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal affirmed those findings and also found the reduced redemption fine and penalty to be reasonable. In appeal under Section 130, interference is confined to substantial questions of law, and a mere challenge to factual findings of the lower authorities is insufficient.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose. The confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty were upheld.

---