Findings of fact and new mixed questions cannot be reopened in appeal or raised for the first time

Findings that the gold belonged to the appellant and was recovered from premises in his possession were treated as findings of fact by the competent authorities and were not reopened in appeal. The Supreme Court also declined to entertain a new contention challenging the applicability of the customs burden provision because it had not been raised in the petition below and would have required fresh factual inquiry and affidavits. The factual objection was rejected, the new ground was disallowed, and the penalty remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the findings that the gold belonged to the appellant and was recovered from premises in his possession could be reopened in appeal, and whether a new contention challenging the applicability of the customs burden provision could be entertained for the first time before the Supreme Court.

Analysis: The customs authorities had recorded findings that the houses belonged to the appellant and that he had pointed out the buried gold during the search. Those were findings of fact reached by the appropriate authorities and were not open to reappreciation in the appeal. The additional contention that the earlier warrant had exhausted itself and that the later seizure could not attract the customs burden provision was not taken in the petition and was sought to be raised for the first time in the Supreme Court. The Court declined to entertain that new point because it would require factual inquiry and the filing of affidavits, which had not been sought in the High Court.

Conclusion: The challenge failed; the appellant's factual objection was rejected and the new ground was not permitted to be raised, leaving the penalty undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Findings of fact by the competent authorities will not be reopened in appeal, and a new factual or mixed question of law and fact cannot ordinarily be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court.

---