No referable question of law arises when a customs reference only disputes evidence appreciation and factual findings.

Section 130(1) permits reference only on a question of law arising from the Tribunal's order, and a challenge confined to appreciation of circumstantial evidence or factual findings is not referable. The proposed reference was rejected because it attacked the Tribunal's factual conclusions in customs adjudication rather than any interpretation of the Customs Act. The Tribunal had placed the burden on the department, considered the circumstantial material, and applied the settled distinction between adjudication proceedings and criminal trials. The omission to mention clause (a) or (b) of Section 112 was treated as immaterial because the ingredients of Section 112(b) had been examined. The reliance on a Madras High Court decision was also rejected as the same legal ratio had effectively been considered.

---

---

Issues: Whether the proposed reference under Section 130(1) raised any referable question of law, or whether it merely challenged appreciation of evidence and the factual findings recorded in the customs adjudication.

Analysis: The application was examined on the scope of Section 130(1), under which only questions of law arising out of the order could be referred. The proposed questions were found to attack the Tribunal's appreciation of circumstantial evidence and its factual conclusions, rather than any interpretation of the Customs Act or any other legal provision. The order also recorded that the Tribunal had placed the burden on the department, considered the circumstantial evidence, and applied the settled distinction between adjudication proceedings and criminal trials. The reliance placed on the omission to mention clause (a) or (b) of Section 112 was also treated as immaterial, because the ingredients of Section 112(b) had been set out and considered. The argument based on the Madras High Court decision was rejected since the Tribunal had, in substance, considered the same legal ratio.

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

---