Confiscation upheld where invoice discrepancies and lack of rebuttal evidence failed to displace adverse factual findings.

Confiscation of goods and rejection of the importer's claim were upheld because the record showed inconsistencies between the invoices produced by the appellant and the copies recovered from the transport premises. The claim of purchase from dealers at Surat was not supported by evidence sufficient to displace the factual findings in the impugned order, and no material was produced to controvert those findings. On that basis, the order was found to suffer from no infirmity and was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of the goods and rejection of the appellant's claim were liable to be interfered with.

Analysis: The claim was based on purchases said to have been made from dealers at Surat, but the record showed discrepancies between the invoices produced by the appellant and the copies recovered from the transport premises. The appellant produced no evidence to controvert the factual findings recorded in the impugned order.

Conclusion: The impugned order suffered from no infirmity and the confiscation and rejection of the claim were upheld.

---