Perverse finding test in customs evidence: supported factual conclusions do not become questions of law for reference.

A factual finding that an assessee had proved silver bars were not smuggled did not, on these facts, raise any question of law for reference. The Court applied the principle that a finding of fact becomes a legal issue only if it is unsupported by evidence, contrary to evidence, perverse, or based partly on irrelevant material; mere disagreement with the sufficiency or adequacy of evidence is insufficient. As the Tribunal's conclusion was supported by relevant documents and surrounding circumstances, it was not perverse or unsupported, and no question of law arose.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's finding that the assessee had discharged the burden of proving that the silver bars were not smuggled goods gave rise to any question of law for reference.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the Tribunal's conclusion, based on documents and surrounding circumstances, was perverse or founded on irrelevant material. The silver bullion was not covered by the statutory presumption under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 at the relevant time, so the matter depended on proof of prior possession and the evidentiary value of the materials relied upon by the Tribunal. A finding of fact gives rise to a question of law only where it is unsupported by evidence, contrary to evidence, perverse, or based partly on irrelevant material; mere sufficiency or adequacy of evidence does not convert it into a legal issue. On the record, the Tribunal's conclusion was supported by relevant materials and could not be treated as perverse or unsupported.

Conclusion: No question of law arose from the Tribunal's order, and the assessee succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A finding of fact based on relevant evidence does not become a question of law unless it is perverse, unsupported by evidence, or vitiated by reliance on irrelevant material.

---