JUDGMENT : RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. 1. Delay of one day in filing Application No.1572 of 2018, to restore the appeal to file, is condoned; and the appeal is restored to file. This appeal is preferred, under Section 130 of the Customs Act 1962, against the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi in Appeal No.C/188/2008-CU(DB) dated 21.01.2015. 2. The appellant herein imported goods vide Bill of Entry No. 587/06, dated 16.06.2006 for clearance of 98.848 M.T. of mixed paper waste. The subject goods were examined, in the presence of the authorized representative of the Customs House Agent (CHA), which revealed the net weight to be 96.65 M.T. out of which 19.83 M.T. was used plastic waste, and the remaining 76.82 M.T. was used paper collected as road sweepings. 3. The plastic content, in the imported mixed paper waste consignment, was neither declared by the appellant in the Bill of Entry, nor did they submit any licence issued by the office of the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) for import of plastic waste. A representative sample, of the plastic content, was drawn in the presence of the authorized representative of the CHA and sent to the Central Institute of Plastic Engineering & Technology, Lucknow (CIPET) for testing; the subject goods were seized on 12.09.2006, under the Customs Act, on the ground that the goods were liable for confiscation as the import of waste plastic of the kind was regulated in the manner provided in the Public Notice No. 392(PN) 92-97 dated 01.01.1997 issued by DGFT; and the appellant was not able to show that these goods were imported in accordance with the said Public Notice. 4. The test certificate dated 20.09.2006, issued by CIPET, Lucknow, revealed that the goods were Polyethylene Terephthalate and toxic. The appellant was informed, by letter dated 17.10.2006, of the afore-said test certificate, in reply to which the appellant sought re-testing vide his letter dated 23.10.2006. A second test was conducted by CIPET, Lucknow and, vide test certificate No.821 dated 12.12.2006, the tested goods were held to be ‘Polyethyelne Terephthalate, Non-food grade’. The used plastic waste was confiscated, and the used papers collected as road sweepings, though confiscated, was allowed to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs.4 lakhs. A second test was conducted by CIPET, Lucknow and, vide test certificate No.821 dated 12.12.2006, the tested goods were held to be ‘Polyethyelne Terephthalate, Non-food grade’. The used plastic waste was confiscated, and the used papers collected as road sweepings, though confiscated, was allowed to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs.4 lakhs. Penalty of Rs.6 lakhs was also imposed, the plastic waste was confiscated in terms of Clauses (d), (e), (f), (i), (l) and (m) of Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962, and “used papers collected as road sweepings” was confiscated under Sub-section (m) Section 111 of the Customs Act. 5. In the order under appeal, the Tribunal observed that, since import of plastic waste was contrary to the conditions of import thereof, it was liable for confiscation; as a consequence thereof used paper, collected as road sweepings, was also liable for confiscation under Section 119 of the Customs Act, namely, the goods used for concealing the smuggled goods, i.e. used plastic waste; Clause 7 of the contract with the suppliers provided for final load port quality inspection on seller’s account by survey or as mutually agreed upon; the contract stipulated for pre-shipment inspection, of the goods imported, to ascertain whether they were as per the declaration in the Bill of Entry; consequently, the appellants could not fully absolve themselves of responsibility to ensure that the goods imported were as per their declaration in the Bill of Entry; and there was no infirmity in the earlier order passed on 10.12.2007. Both the appellate order and the primary order dated 11.05.2007 were upheld. 6. Before us, Mr. Rahul Consul, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that, it is only if it is established that the appellant intended to import goods without obtaining necessary permission from the DGFT, could these goods be subjected to confiscation; for the fault of the exporter the appellant, who has imported the goods, cannot be held liable for payment of fine/penalty; and, therefore, the order of the Tribunal, confirming the order of the appellate authority, is liable to be set aside. 7. Mr. 7. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent, would submit that a significant quantity, of approximately 20 per cent of the imported goods, was used plastic waste which was found to be toxic; the appellant had sought to import such used plastic waste declaring them as paper waste; and, consequently, the imported plastic goods were liable for confiscation. 8. It is evident from the order of the Tribunal that, as against the total quantity of 96.65 M.T. of goods imported, more than 20 per cent thereof i.e. 19.83 M.T was used plastic waste, and it is only the remaining 76.82 M.T. which was used paper waste collected as roads sweepings. Section 119 of the Customs Act stipulates that any goods, used for concealing the smuggled goods, shall also be liable for confiscation; and since a huge quantity of 19.83 M.T. of used plastic was imported, without declaring such import in the Bill of Entry and without obtaining clearance from the DGFT, the authorities had rightly held that the appellant had used the imported goods (used paper waste) to conceal smuggled goods (i.e. used plastic waste). 9. The submission of Mr. Rahul Consul, learned counsel for the appellant, that it is the exporter who is responsible, and the appellant who had imported the goods bona fide cannot be subjected to fine and penalty, as he was unaware that the goods imported by him also contained used plastic, is not tenable. In the order under appeal, the Tribunal has noted that Clause 7 of the contract provided for pre-shipment inspection of the imported goods. As it was open to the appellant to inspect the goods, before they were exported to India (prior to shipment), he could not absolve himself of blame and claim to be unaware that the shipment contained used plastic of a considerable quantity. 10. An appeal to the High Court is available, under Section 130 of the Customs Act, only if the case involves a substantial question of law. The Tribunal is the final Court of fact, and it is only if such findings are either perverse or are based on no evidence, would they give rise to a substantial question of law warranting interference in proceedings under Section 130 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal is the final Court of fact, and it is only if such findings are either perverse or are based on no evidence, would they give rise to a substantial question of law warranting interference in proceedings under Section 130 of the Customs Act. The findings recorded by the Tribunal, in the order under appeal, do not suffer from any such infirmity nor does a substantial question of law arise for consideration in this appeal. 11. We see no reason, therefore, to entertain this appeal in the exercise of our jurisdiction under Section 130 of the Customs Act. The appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.