Imports made without EXIM licence and with misdeclared quantity/value-reference under s130A denied; fines and penalties not formula-based.

Importers challenged confiscation-related orders for importing goods without the specific licence mandated by the EXIM Policy and, in some cases, by mis-declaring quantity and value in the bills of entry, seeking a reference under s 130A of the Customs Act. The SC held that the applicant must distinctly formulate the question of law sought to be referred, and that no question of law arises unless the factual findings underpinning the Tribunal's inferences are specifically put in issue. The SC further held that redemption fine and penalty are not governed by any rigid or standard formula. Consequently, the HC was justified in refusing to direct the Tribunal to make a reference under s 130A.

---

---

Issues: Whether the questions framed by the Revenue under Section 130A of the Customs Act, 1962, arising from the Tribunal's reduction of redemption fines and penalties by reference to earlier similar decisions, constitute questions of law that should be referred to the High Court, where the Tribunal's factual finding of similarity was not challenged.

Analysis: Section 130A requires the applicant to clearly state the question of law sought to be referred and the relevant paragraph of the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority; a question of law arises from its order only if the factual finding is assailed as perverse (i.e., a finding no reasonable person could have reached on the material before the Tribunal). The Revenue's applications did not challenge the Tribunal's factual conclusion that the cases were similar to earlier decisions and relied on the Tribunal's application of a uniform reduction. Established principles (including that a standard formula cannot override case-specific facts) still permit the Tribunal to exercise discretion in reduction of fines, but absent a specific challenge to the factual findings as perverse, no question of law was shown to arise under Section 130A.

Conclusion: The questions proposed for reference under Section 130A do not constitute questions of law because the Revenue failed to challenge the Tribunal's finding of similarity of facts as perverse; the High Court correctly refused to direct a reference. The appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and the impugned orders are affirmed.

---