Technical breach and excise record contravention did not raise a referable question of law; confiscation and penalty stood.

Questions depending on appreciation of evidence and factual findings about contravention of excise records and processing entries do not become questions of law merely because the breach is described as technical. Where the records showed a dutiable process had been carried out and entries were altered only after detection, confiscation, fine and penalty were treated as consequences of the proved violation. A plea that the breach was merely venial was rejected because the Rules contemplated such sanctions for the contravention, and an asserted challenge to the vires of section 2(f) was held not to arise from the order under reference. The reference application was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the purported questions raised by the applicant disclosed any question of law so as to warrant reference, and whether confiscation and penalty imposed for contravention of excise records and processing entries could be challenged as arising from only a technical or venial breach.

Analysis: The questions relating to the status of the goods at the time of visit, the treatment of lots under processing, and the effect of entries made in the statutory records were held to turn on the facts as found from the evidence. The goods had been entered as having undergone only a duty-free process, while the factual findings showed that a dutiable process had in fact been carried out, and the records were altered only after detection. On that basis, confiscation and imposition of fine were treated as consequences flowing from the proved breach, not as issues of law. The plea that the breach was merely technical was rejected, because the Rules contemplated confiscation and penalty for such violations and no principle barred imposition of penalty or redemption fine merely because the breach was described as technical. The contention founded on an alleged challenge to the vires of section 2(f) was also held not to arise from the order under reference.

Conclusion: The reference application was rejected, and the questions proposed for reference were held not to give rise to any referable question of law.

Ratio Decidendi: Questions that depend on appreciation of evidence and factual findings on contravention of excise records and processing entries do not constitute questions of law merely because the breach is described as technical or the imposed penalty is disputed.

---