Reference jurisdiction limited to questions arising from the Tribunal's order; evidentiary findings on ownership remain factual, not legal.

A question can be directed for reference only if it actually arises from the Tribunal's order; issues based on factual contentions not urged before the Tribunal are outside that jurisdiction. The text also states that a finding that a person owned contraband goods or was concerned in acquiring, keeping, concealing, or dealing with them, when reached on appreciation of evidence, is a finding of fact. Mere disagreement with evidentiary appraisal does not convert such a finding into a referable question of law. On that basis, proposed reference questions were treated as non-referable, either because they did not arise from the record or because they attacked factual findings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the proposed questions based on unraised factual contentions could be said to arise from the Tribunal's order so as to justify a reference. (ii) Whether the remaining questions challenged a pure finding of fact or raised a referable question of law.

Issue (i): Whether the proposed questions based on unraised factual contentions could be said to arise from the Tribunal's order so as to justify a reference.

Analysis: The jurisdiction to direct a reference is confined to questions that actually arise out of the appellate order. The factual basis for the first two proposed questions was not urged before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal had no occasion to deal with it. A question not arising from the Tribunal's order cannot be sent for reference.

Conclusion: The first two questions were not referable and the prayer for reference on that basis failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the remaining questions challenged a pure finding of fact or raised a referable question of law.

Analysis: The Tribunal's conclusion that the petitioner was the owner of the contraband goods and was concerned in acquiring, keeping, concealing, or dealing with them was reached on appreciation of the evidence. Such a determination is a finding of fact. No legal question arose from that finding merely because the petitioner disputed the evidentiary appreciation or sought to reopen the merits under the guise of reference.

Conclusion: The remaining questions did not raise any question of law and were not fit for reference.

Final Conclusion: The petitions for directing the Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer the questions were rejected, as the proposed questions either did not arise from the Tribunal's order or were confined to findings of fact.

Ratio Decidendi: A question can be referred only if it arises from the Tribunal's order, and a conclusion based on appreciation of evidence and ownership or possession is ordinarily a finding of fact not giving rise to a referable question of law.

---