Reference under Customs Act requires a real question of law; concurrent factual findings stand absent perversity or ignored evidence.

A reference under section 130(1) of the Customs Act is maintainable only where a referable question of law arises from the Tribunal's order. On the facts, the dispute did not require interpretation of the Customs Act, and section 123 and Chapter IVA were held inapplicable. The Tribunal also reiterated that the Department bears the initial burden of proving smuggling. Although concurrent findings of fact are usually not disturbed, interference is justified where material evidence is ignored, the findings are perverse, or the evidentiary approach is legally flawed; no such defect was shown here. No referable question of law arose, so the application was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reference application under section 130(1) of the Customs Act could be entertained on the ground that a question of law arose from the Tribunal's order, and whether concurrent findings of fact could be interfered with.

Analysis: A question referable to the High Court must arise out of the Tribunal's order. The appeal did not involve interpretation of any provision of the Customs Act, and section 123 or Chapter IVA was held inapplicable on the facts. The Tribunal noted that the initial burden of showing that the goods were smuggled lay on the Department. It further held that although concurrent findings of fact are ordinarily not disturbed, the Tribunal may interfere where material evidence has been ignored, the findings are perverse or contrary to the evidence, or the approach to the evidence or law is flawed. On the facts, no such error was shown.

Conclusion: No referable question of law arose, and the application was not maintainable.

---