No substantial question of law arises when an appeal challenges only accepted factual findings in import compliance matters.

The Bombay High Court noted that the challenge was confined to factual findings accepted by the Tribunal, including the appellant's role in advising compliance with import and arms-related requirements and its knowledge of misdeclaration and misclassification. Because no independent legal principle or fresh question of law was shown, the Court found that no substantial question of law arose for appellate consideration. The impugned decision was therefore not interfered with on that basis, and the forfeiture of the security deposit stood on the factual record accepted below.

---

---

Issues: Whether any substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's acceptance of the factual findings relating to the appellant's role in the import clearance process and the consequent forfeiture of the security deposit.

Analysis: The Court noted that the adjudicating authority had recorded factual findings that the appellant was obliged to advise the importer to comply with the applicable import and arms-related requirements, that the appellant had knowledge of the misdeclaration and misclassification, and that the Tribunal had accepted those findings. The challenge before the Court was directed only at those factual conclusions and not at any independent legal principle requiring fresh determination.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose, and the appeal was not entertainable on that basis.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the Tribunal's reliance on the factual findings and declined interference with the impugned decision.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the challenge is confined to accepted factual findings, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in appeal.

---