JUDGMENT : Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. 1. Appeal under section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 is directed against the order No. FO/78332-78334/2017 dated 01.12.2017 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, in terms whereof, Customs Appeal Nos.C/75050, 75051, 75052/2017 have been allowed and the order impugned therein dated 03.01.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Prev), Shillong has been set aside. 2. The background of the case in nutshell is as under: (i) Two trucks loaded with dry suprari (betel nuts) on 14.01.2016 were intercepted by custom officers. The drivers were asked to produce the documents which they failed, therefore, on the reasonable belief that the goods are illegally imported into India both the trucks were seized along with the goods. Shri Shyam Mondal and Shri Samir Ghosh appeared before the officers claiming to be the owners of the said vehicles. (ii) Shri Rajesh Lapang of M/s Lapang Eco Products, Byrnihat, Meghalaya, had claimed ownership of the seized goods. On conclusion of the investigation by the customs department, a show cause notice was issued. (iii) Finally, it has been concluded that the seized goods were of foreign origin, as such, liable for confiscation. 3. The Commissioner of Customs (Prev) North Eastern Regions, Shillong vide his detailed order-in-original dated 03.01.2017 concluded as under:- "35. I order absolute confiscation of the betel nuts of foreign origin valued at Rs. 60,48,080/- (Rupees sixty lakhs forty eight thousand and eight only) seized vide Case No. 11/CL/IMP/CUS/HQRS. PREV/SH/15-16 dated 15-1-2016 under section 111 (b) and (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 in the absence of any genuine claimant/owner of the said goods. Since the said contraband has already been sold in public auction and the proceeds thereof amounting to Rs. 66,51,140/- (Rupees sixty six lakhs fifty one thousand one hundred forty) only was deposited into the State Bank of India, Guwahati vide T.R.6 Challan No. 06/2016-17 dated 23-5-2016, I order appropriation of the sale proceeds towards the Government exchequer. 36. I order confiscation of the vehicle bearing registration No. WB 51A-4936 valued at Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs only) under section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. I, however, give an option to the owner of the said vehicle to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 36. I order confiscation of the vehicle bearing registration No. WB 51A-4936 valued at Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs only) under section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. I, however, give an option to the owner of the said vehicle to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 3,00,000/- (rupees three lakhs only) in lieu of confiscation under section 115 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962. Option is to be exercised within ten days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the confiscation shall be absolute. 37. I order confiscation of the vehicle bearing registration No. WB 41F -2694 valued at Rs. 10,00,000/- (rupees ten lakhs only) under section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. I, however, give an option to the owner of the said vehicle to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 2,50,000/- (rupees two lakh fifty thousand only) in lieu of confiscation under section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. Option is to be exercised within ten days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the confiscation shall be absolute. 38. I impose a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- (rupees five lakh only) on Shri Om Prakash Gupta under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. 39. I impose a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) each on Shri Paritosh Halder, Shri Tapan Biswas, Shri Samir Ghosh, Shri Shyam Mondal and Shri Barun Chakraborty under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. 40. I impose a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs only) on Shri Rajesh Lapang under section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962." 4. Aggrieved by the said order, three appeals were filed before the CESTAT (Tribunal), learned Tribunal allowed the appeals and has set aside the order-in-original dated 03.01.2017 by holding as under:- "There is absolutely nothing on record to even remotely suggest that such goods are of foreign origin. Betel nuts is also not a commodity notified under section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 and hence, the onus is on the Department to prove that the goods are of foreign origin and smuggled in India. Further, there is no export or trade information from any knowledgeable person to indicate that the category or quality of the seized betel nuts are not found in India. Further, there is no export or trade information from any knowledgeable person to indicate that the category or quality of the seized betel nuts are not found in India. Local movement of Betel Nuts and violation of any local laws regarding custody and movements of such goods cannot be made the basis for confiscation under Customs Act, 1962." 5. The learned Tribunal has rightly held that it was for the revenue to discharge the onus regarding foreign origin of the seized goods (betel nuts). As the said goods (commodity) are not notified under section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1962"). 6. True it is that the revenue has not produced any evidence scientific or otherwise to prove foreign origin of the seized goods. Betel nuts are also available in India, therefore, pre-condition for confiscation is that the goods must have been of foreign origin and must have been imported to India in a manner other than as prescribed by Customs Act so as to fall within the ambit of Section 111 of the Act of 1962. 7. Another linked question is regarding the finding/opinion of the Commissioner of Customs, who had passed the order-in-original i.e. "absence of any genuine claimant/ owner of the goods" when he could not find any genuine claimant/owner of the seized goods because after concluding that the revenue has failed to produce evidence regarding foreign origin of the goods then goods were to be released. Confiscated goods have been sold in auction and sale proceeds amounting to Rs. 66,51,140/- (Rupees sixty six lakhs fifty one thousand and one hundred forty) have been deposited into State Bank of India, Guwahati. Once the order of the adjudicating authority regarding confiscation is set aside, then as a necessary corollary, question would arise to whom the sale proceeds of the seized goods are to be paid. 8. Mr. N. Mozika, learned counsel for the respondent was pointedly asked as to whether there was any justification for seizure and confiscation when the goods were not notified under Section 123 of the Act of 1962, he could not controvert the position that it was for the revenue to discharge the onus of proving the seized goods to be of foreign origin. Once the goods were not proved to be of foreign origin, there could be no question of confiscation as has been rightly concluded by the learned Tribunal. 9. Appeal under Section 130 of the Act of 1962 has to be maintained only when substantial questions of law will arise for determination. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the learned Tribunal had not returned the finding regarding genuineness of the claim of the so called owner is in the realm of evidence so cannot be looked into in this appeal because it does not constitute substantial question of law. 10. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the submissions as made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the record and the order impugned in our considered view, no substantial question of law arise for determination. That being so, appeal under Section 130 of the Act of 1962 is not worth to be entertained is accordingly dismissed.