No substantial question of law arises where facts show no proof linking the exporter to prohibited goods in an intact sealed container.

The Revenue's Section 130 Customs Act appeal failed because it raised no substantial question of law and turned on factual findings. The Tribunal had found no evidence connecting the exporter with the attempted export of prohibited red sanders logs, noting that the container seal was intact, the panchanama and contemporaneous records showed no tampering, and the Central Excise Superintendent confirmed stuffing and sealing at the factory. The Court accepted that the adjudicating authority had proceeded on presumption rather than proof. It also noted the Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act, 1993 framework placing cargo responsibility on the multimodal transport operator, reinforcing the deletion of penalty. The Tribunal's order was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue's appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 raised any substantial question of law when the Tribunal had found, on the basis of records and documents, that there was no evidence connecting the respondent/exporter with the attempted export of prohibited goods and the container seal was intact.

Analysis: The appeal turned entirely on appreciation of facts. The show cause notice and the adjudication materials did not disclose any specific allegation establishing the respondent's knowledge or involvement in stuffing prohibited red sanders logs into the container. The Tribunal relied on the panchanama and contemporaneous records showing that the seal was intact and untampered when the container was opened, and also on the statement of the Central Excise Superintendent confirming the stuffing and sealing at the factory premises. The Court accepted the Tribunal's view that the adjudicating authority had proceeded on presumption and assumption, without producing evidence to connect the respondent with the contraband. The Court also noted the statutory framework under the Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act, 1993, which placed responsibility on the multimodal transport operator for the cargo, reinforcing the factual conclusion that the respondent/exporter was not shown to be liable for the prohibited goods found in the sealed container.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose. The Tribunal's deletion of penalty was sustained and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

---