TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 927
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Customs (Preventive) had ordered confiscation of Respondent's goods. 3. The Respondent received a Notice dated 12 August 2003 from the Commissioner of Customs calling upon the Respondent and its Director to show cause as to why the man made fabrics of foreign origin, valued at Rs. 24,73,340/-, should not be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 7 and 11(1) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The Show Cause Notice also called upon the Respondent to demonstrate why the penalty should not be imposed under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. The case of the Appellant was that an information was received that a container loaded of imported fabrics stored at godown situated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Act, 1962 and imposed penalty under Section 112(a)/112(b) and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, on the Respondent and the Director. 6. The Respondent filed an Appeal before the Tribunal bearing No. C/588/07 against the order dated 20 March 2007. The Tribunal after hearing both the sides and going through the record and assessing evidence concluded that the view taken by the Commissioner was erroneous as it could not have been held that the confiscation of the entire seized goods was sustainable and that the conclusion that the seized goods may not be validly imported was not correct and proper. Accordingly, by the impugned order dated 1 November 2007, the Tribunal allowed the Appeal filed by the Respondents. Hence, the Appellant is before us....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted is a question of fact. It is settled that the scope of reversing an order of the Tribunal on a finding of fact is extremely limited and is restricted to ascertaining whether the finding of fact is demonstrably perverse or that it is not possible to reach such a finding and it is contrary to the record on the face of it. It is also settled that if a possible view is taken by the Tribunal based on the analysis of the factual material then a question of law would not arise. 10. In the present case, the Commissioner has undertaken the exercise of tallying the details of the seized goods as per the panchanama and details of the goods as per the concerned Bills of Entry. The Commissioner found that they did not match and there are only six e....