Referable question of law on redemption fine survives where its excessiveness must be tested against market value and legal principle.

Questions about the genuineness of the bill, attempted improper export, proof of "attempt", the effect of the criminal court's order, and the harshness of penalty were treated as questions of fact based on appreciation of evidence and were held not referable under the Customs Act. The Tribunal distinguished the issue of redemption fine, holding that whether the fine was excessive raised a referable question of law because fixation had to be tested against the market value of the confiscated goods and the governing legal principle. Only the question on alleged excessiveness of redemption fine was therefore accepted as referable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the questions framed in the application under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 131C thereof were referable questions of law, and whether the question relating to the quantum of redemption fine alone gave rise to a referable question of law.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that questions concerning the genuineness of the bill, the finding of attempted improper export, the proof of "attempt", the effect of the criminal court's order, and the harshness of penalty were all questions of fact resting on appreciation of evidence and therefore did not warrant reference. It further held that the issue relating to redemption fine was a question of law because the quantum had to be tested against the market value of the confiscated goods and the relevant legal principle governing fixation of redemption fine.

Conclusion: Only the question relating to the alleged excessiveness of redemption fine was held referable, while the remaining questions were rejected as factual.

---