JUDGMENT V.G. Sabhahit , J.—This appeal is filed by the appellant in Customs Appeal No. 217/2005 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Bangalore (hereinafter called as 'Tribunal' for brevity) being aggrieved by the order dated 1-5-2007 [ 2007 (216) E.L.T. 626 (Tribunal)], wherein the Tribunal has upheld the order passed by the Commissioner imposing penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter called as 'Act' for brevity) and reduced the penalty from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. The material facts leading up to this appeal are as follows : The officers of the Customs Headquarters Preventive, Central Intelli-gence Unit (CIU), Bangalore had gathered specific intelligence to the effect that M/s. Surya Light, New Delhi (importer) had imported Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFL) from Sri Lanka through Inland Container Depot (ICD), Bangalore but had misdeclared the country of origin of the goods in order to avail the benefit of exemption under the Indo-Sri Lankan Free Trade Agreement (ISFTA) and also to evade the payment of Anti-Dumping Duty leviable on the CFL imported from or originating from China. Based on the above intelligence, the officers of the CIU intercepted a container bearing No. TEXU 209161-0 at ICD, Bangalore on 20-11-2003 which was said to contain Energy Saving Lamps of Sri Lankan origin. It was ascertained that the importer M/s. Surya Light, 1/10175, Gali No. 1, West Gourakh Park, Shahdara, Delhi had filed a Bill of Entry No. 20244 dated 6-11-2003 for the import of 76500 pieces of 7W Energy Saving Lamps (hereinafter referred to as 'the said goods') whose declared value was Rs.6,32,800/-. The said goods were declared to have been imported from Colombo, Sri Lanka. Perusal of the said Bill of Entry revealed that the assessable value of the said goods had been enhanced to Rs.8,78,889/- by the assessing officer and the said goods had been allowed the benefit of the ISFTA. The said goods were declared to have been imported from Colombo, Sri Lanka. Perusal of the said Bill of Entry revealed that the assessable value of the said goods had been enhanced to Rs.8,78,889/- by the assessing officer and the said goods had been allowed the benefit of the ISFTA. The officers of the CIU took possession of the said Bill of Entry (original and duplicate copies) alongwith enclosed documents and it revealed on the basis of the statement of the Customs Agent and the importer's agent that the appellant was incharge of processing of the bill of entry, he had colluded with the CHA and enabled the said persons to replace the invoice, wherein origin of the goods was deleted by altering the original invoice which showed that origin of the goods was China. Thereafter, the appellant accepted the said bill of entry and the same was processed in accordance with law. 2. The material on record would also show that the appellant who is an employee in the respondent-Department as Customs Appraiser was incharge of processing the bill of entry, but for his convenience the bill of entry could not have been replaced or tampered. Wherefore, show cause notice was issued on 30th April 2004 to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed. After reply was submitted by appellant original order was passed after appreciating the statements on record and also the documents that were seized which clearly show that in the original invoice the place of original of goods is shown as China and in the invoice which was processed by the appellant the country of origin column was left blank and the rate of duty was nil as in view of the agreement between India and Srilanka that no Anti-Dumping Duty leviable and accordingly imposed penalty of Rs.50,000/-. Being aggrieved by the same appeal was filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by impugned order dated 1st May 2007 confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Tribunal this appeal is filed. 3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. The Tribunal by impugned order dated 1st May 2007 confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Tribunal this appeal is filed. 3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. The original records including the invoice that was processed and original invoice which was seized have been made available and we have perused the said invoices and the order passed by processing the said bill of entry as per the original records. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the statement of the Customs House Agents (hereinafter referred to as "CHA" for brevity) and the importer's agent is inconsistent insofar as part played by the appellant and the appellant was not aware of the fact that the original invoice had been replaced by suppressing the place of origin as that of China and he has processed in accordance with law. He submitted that statements have not been appreciated properly. There is inconsistency in the statement of the CHA and the employee of the consignee and has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Hari Ram and Others, AIR 1983 SC 1081 , wherein in a Criminal Appeal Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the scope of appreciation of evidence wherein the accused had been charged of having committed offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. He has taken us through the statements of the CHA and the employee of the consignee and submitted that there is inconsistency in their evidence and contradiction in their evidence and there was no material to prove connivance or any offensive act on the part of the appellant for imposing penalty. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent with reference to the original records submitted that appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal and the original authority is justified and does not suffer from any error or irregularity as to call for interference in this appeal. 7. We have given careful consideration to the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinised the material on record including the original records made available by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 8. 7. We have given careful consideration to the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinised the material on record including the original records made available by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 8. The scrutiny of the material on record would clearly show the fact that appellant was working as Customs Appraiser an was incharge of duty of processing the bill of entry including the disputed bill of entry, is not disputed. 9. Material on record would clearly show that though the original bill of entry showed the place of origin as China, thereafter the bill of invoice has been tampered after removing the top portion and origin of goods has not been shown in the invoice and on the basis of which bill of entry was processed by the appellant. Wherefore, it is clear that the appellant who was the Custom Appraiser and admittedly incharge of processing the bill of entry. When the material on record shows that original bill of invoice which has been produced before the appellant has been changed so as to evade payment of tax and consequential duties, the only inference that can be drawn is that the appellant must have colluded with the said employee of the consignee and the CHA. There is concurrent finding on the question of fact about the involvement of the appellant and imposition of penalty which are pure question of fact and the decision relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would not be helpful to him as in the said appeal Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the question of appreciation of evidence in an appeal filed before the High Court against the order of conviction against the order where the offence alleged was murder, the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. On perusal of the statements of appellant, CHA and employee of the consignee which has been referred to by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant we find that appreciation of the evidence is neither perverse nor arbitrary so as to call for interference in this appeal and concurrent finding has been rendered by the properly appreciating the material on record which is clearly justified and the original records that are made available which we have perused and accordingly, we hold that no ground is made out for interfering with the order. No question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.