Substantial question of law was absent where penalty adequacy and habitual offending were treated as factual matters.

A reference application confined to the adequacy of penalty and the importer's alleged habitual offending did not raise any substantial question of law. The quantum of penalty was treated as a factual determination for the adjudicating or appellate authority, and past conduct was held not to form an ingredient of the separate adjudication. On that basis, no reference to the High Court was warranted and the application was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reference application disclosed any substantial question of law warranting reference to the High Court.

Analysis: The application sought a reference only on the adequacy of the penalty and on whether the importer was a habitual offender. The reasoning was that the quantum of penalty is to be determined on the facts by the adjudicating or appellate authority and does not, by itself, raise a substantial question of law. It was further observed that past conduct is not an ingredient of the separate adjudication in question.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose, and the reference application was rejected.

---