Third Member reference under Customs law must specify the exact points of difference; blanket referral of the entire appeal is impermissible.

Under Section 129C(5) of the Customs Act, where Members of a Division Bench differ, the Bench must formulate the specific point or points of disagreement before a Third Member reference is made. A blanket reference of the entire appeal is impermissible because the statutory language confines the referral to the precise issues on which the Members are divided. The referral process must therefore preserve certainty and proceed only on the identified points of difference.

---

---

Issues: Whether, under Section 129C(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, the Members of a Division Bench, when equally divided, must specifically state the point or points of difference before making a reference to the President for nomination of a Third Member, rather than referring the entire appeal.

Analysis: The statutory scheme requires the Bench, in the event of difference of opinion, to identify the precise point or points on which the Members differ. The reference to a Third Member is confined to those formulated points, and the entire appeal is not to be sent for rehearing as a whole. The cited High Court decisions support the view that the referral process must preserve certainty and finality and must comply with the mandatory language of the provision.

Conclusion: The referral Bench was required to formulate specific points of difference before the matter could be placed before the President for nomination of a Third Member.

Final Conclusion: The application was disposed of with the direction that the Division Bench specifically frame the points of difference and then proceed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory provision requires reference of the point or points of disagreement, the referring Bench must formulate those specific points, and a blanket reference of the entire appeal is impermissible.

---