1 mgj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Customs Appeal No. 13 of 2010 Shri Yusuf Poonawala ..Appellant vs. 1 Union of India & ors. ..Respondents Ms. Kiran Doiphode i/b V.M.Doiphode and Co. for appellant Mr.P.S.Jetly for respondents. CORAM: V.C.DAGA AND K.K.TATED JJ 22nd March,2010 P.C. Perused appeal. 1 Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. 2 The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the contentions canvassed by the appellant were not considered by the Tribunal. She also contends that so far as the involvement of the present appellants is concerned there is no finding 2 recorded against him. She also placed reliance on the statements of various persons in support of her submissions. 3 Having gone through the appeal papers, it is clear that Misc. Application was moved by the appellants. It was to canvass therein that the contentions raised by the appellants were not considered by the Tribunal. The said Misc. Application came to be rejected by order dated 7th December, 2009; wherein the Tribunal has passed an order saying that all these contentions are discussed by it in its judgment in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10. 4 Once the contentions raised have already been held to be considered, then, the appellant is not entitled to raise the same contentions once again in this appeal especially having accepted the adverse order passed on the Misc. Application by the Tribunal. So far as the involvement of the 3 present appellant in the act of illegal import is concerned, the Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding in paragraph 11 of the order dated 17th September, 2009 which reads as under: 11 On careful examination of the submissions made by both the parties, I find that the facts and circumstances has forced me to look into the role of the appellant in the instant case. From the statements and circumstances, it is clear that the appellant was actively involved in the importation of the vehicle since beginning and in these circumstances the Adjudicating Authority has rightly held that he was actively involved in the importation of the vehicle and having knowledge of the mis-declaration of the year of manufacture. The learned SDR has been able to prove from the statement recorded during the course of investigation that the appellant was actively involved in the importation of the vehicle. In these circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and the same is upheld. The aforesaid findings of fact are based on the material available. The finding of fact is neither perverse nor without evidence as 4 such not open to challenge in the appeal. 5 In the result the appeal is liable to be dismissed in limini for want of substantial question of law. No order as to costs. (K.K.TATED J.) (V.C.DAGA J.)