Concurrent findings on technical record lapse, not clandestine removal, barred interference and sustained reduced penalty

Concurrent factual findings that the disputed yarn was separately stacked, the anti-static oil was not proved to be excess stock, and the omission was only a technical default in maintaining statutory records justified setting aside confiscation and reducing the penalty. The Gujarat HC found no legal infirmity in those concurrent findings and held that the controversy did not disclose clandestine removal or any substantial question of law. Interference was therefore declined, and the characterisation of the lapse as technical rather than deliberate was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in affirming the findings that the goods were not liable to confiscation and that only a reduced penalty was warranted for non-entry of stock in the statutory records, and whether any substantial question of law arose for interference.

Analysis: The appellate authorities had concurrently found that the texturised yarn was not excess stock but separately stacked, that the anti-static oil was not shown to be excess in a manner suggesting clandestine removal, and that the lapse was only a technical default in maintenance of records. On those factual findings, confiscation was set aside and the penalty was reduced. The High Court found no legal infirmity in those concurrent findings and no basis to convert the factual controversy into a substantial question of law.

Conclusion: The finding that the case involved only a technical lapse and not clandestine removal was upheld, and interference was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings of fact that the disputed goods were not excess stock and that the lapse was only a technical default in statutory record maintenance do not give rise to a substantial question of law warranting appellate interference.

---