Scope of reference applications bars later-added issues; new questions outside the original reference were rejected as not maintainable.

Additional questions not raised in the original reference application could not be entertained through a later application because the earlier reference order contained no finding on those points. The Tribunal noted that the two new issues were introduced only at a subsequent stage, so they were outside the scope of the original reference and were not validly referable for adjudication. It also observed that the confiscation rested on multiple factors and not solely on the fact that the goods were notified goods. The subsequent reference application was therefore not maintainable and was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether additional questions not raised in the main reference application could subsequently be entertained and referred for adjudication.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the two newly raised points had not been included in the original reference application and were introduced only at a later stage. As the body of the earlier reference order did not contain any finding on those additional points, they could not be validly brought in by a subsequent application. The Tribunal also noted that the confiscation was based on multiple factors and not merely on the observation that the goods were notified goods.

Conclusion: The subsequent reference application was held to be not maintainable and was rejected.

---