1987 (5) TMI 36 - HC - Customs

High Court affirms Tribunal's ownership ruling on contraband goods. Petitions rejected for Customs Act questions.

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's findings on ownership of contraband goods as factual determinations. The Court dismissed the petitions seeking ... Reference to High Court under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 - reference to High Court under Section 82B of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 - questions not arising out of appellate order cannot be referred - failure to raise a point before the appellate tribunal bars a reference - findings of fact by tribunal do not give rise to a question of law - petition dismissed in limineQuestions not arising out of appellate order cannot be referred - failure to raise a point before the appellate tribunal bars a reference - Questions No. 1 and No. 2 sought to be referred did not arise out of the Tribunal's order and could not be directed to be referred. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the submissions forming the basis of Questions No. 1 and No. 2 (including reliance on an FIR and exclusionary objections under Section 25 of the Evidence Act and Article 20(3) of the Constitution) were not urged before the Appellate Tribunal and therefore the Tribunal had no occasion to consider or decide them. Because those contentions did not arise from the Tribunal's order, the Tribunal could not be directed to refer those questions to the High Court under the statutory reference provisions. No explanation was offered to show how a direction to refer could be given in these circumstances. [Paras 6]Questions No. 1 and No. 2 are not referable as they did not arise out of the Tribunal's order and were not raised before the Tribunal.Findings of fact by tribunal do not give rise to a question of law - Questions No. 3 to No. 6 involve the Tribunal's factual finding that the petitioner was the owner and in conscious possession of the contraband goods, and hence do not raise a question of law for reference. - HELD THAT: - The Court observed that the Tribunal's conclusion-based on appreciation of the material before it-that the petitioner was the person concerned in acquiring, keeping, concealing and dealing with the goods is a finding of fact. Such findings, being factual determinations arrived at on evidence, do not present a question of law which the Tribunal can be directed to refer to the High Court under the statutory reference mechanism. Accordingly, those questions cannot be the subject of a reference. [Paras 7]Questions No. 3 to No. 6 are factual findings and do not give rise to any question of law for reference.Final Conclusion: Both petitions under Section 130(3) of the Customs Act and Section 82B(3) of the Gold (Control) Act are dismissed in limine: Questions 1 and 2 do not arise from the Tribunal's order as they were not raised before it, and Questions 3-6 are factual findings by the Tribunal that do not present questions of law for reference. Issues:1. Confiscation of gold and silver under Customs Act, 1962.2. Imposition of penalties on the petitioner.3. Appeal against the orders to Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal.4. Reduction of penalty by the Tribunal.5. Petitions seeking reference of questions under Customs Act and Gold (Control) Act.6. Rejection of petitions by the Tribunal.7. Appeal to High Court under Section 130(3) of the Act and Section 82B(3) of the Gold (Control) Act.Analysis:The case involved the confiscation of gold and silver under the Customs Act, 1962, where the police intercepted an individual near the petitioner's house with contraband goods. The Customs Officers recorded statements from the petitioner, his father, and sister-in-law. The Collector of Customs imposed penalties and absolute confiscation of goods, leading to appeals to the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld ownership of the goods by the petitioner but reduced the penalty imposed. The petitioner then sought reference of questions under both Acts, which were rejected by the Tribunal.The petitioner filed petitions under Section 130(3) of the Act and Section 82B(3) of the Gold (Control) Act, seeking directions to the Appellate Tribunal to refer questions to the High Court. The High Court noted that certain questions were not raised before the Tribunal and thus did not arise from its order. Questions related to the Tribunal's findings on ownership of contraband goods were considered findings of fact, not questions of law. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petitions as no legal issues arose from the Tribunal's decision.In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's findings on ownership of the contraband goods as factual determinations. The Court dismissed the petitions seeking reference of questions under the Customs Act and Gold (Control) Act, as the questions did not arise from the Tribunal's order and were not considered legal issues.