Confiscation for tobacco transport without valid documents sustained, as concurrent factual findings supported the revisional order.

Transporting tobacco without a valid transport permit or sale note was treated as a clear contravention of the transport rule, and confiscation was sustained. The authorities accepted the explanation for delayed production of the sale note but found, on the material before them, that the seized goods differed in variety and quantity from those described in the note; those concurrent factual findings were supported by the record. The revisional authority adopted those findings and merely reduced the fine and penalty, so the absence of a detailed revisional order did not justify interference and no breach of natural justice was shown.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation and penalty for transporting tobacco without a valid transport document were sustainable, and whether the revisional order was vitiated for want of detailed reasons.

Analysis: Contravention of the transport rule was established because the goods were carried without a valid permit or sale note at the relevant time. The explanation for delayed production of the sale note was considered, but the authorities found on the material that the goods seized were different in variety and quantity from those described in the sale note, and those findings of fact were supported by the record. The revisional authority agreed with the concurrent factual findings and only reduced the fine and penalty; in such circumstances, the absence of an elaborate revisional order did not warrant interference, and no breach of natural justice was shown.

Conclusion: The confiscation and the reduced monetary liabilities were upheld, and the challenge to the revisional order failed.

---