Appreciation of evidence under the Customs Act did not raise a referable question of law; reference rejected.

Questions challenging confiscation of a vessel under the Customs Act were held to involve only appreciation of evidence, not a distinct question of law. The Tribunal accepted that statements recorded under the Act, including those of co-accused or independent persons, could be used against the appellant, and found no separate legal category excluding such evidence. It also held that burden-shifting principles linked to section 123 did not assist the proposed reference. The reference application was therefore rejected, and the confiscation-related findings remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the questions proposed by the appellant raised any referable question of law, or whether they merely challenged appreciation of evidence in support of confiscation of the vessel under the Customs Act.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the challenge turned on the evidentiary value of statements recorded under the Customs Act and on the factual inference drawn from them. It held that statements of co-accused could be used against the appellant, and that if the makers were independent persons there was no separate category excluding their evidence. The Tribunal further held that the controversy was confined to appreciation of evidence and did not give rise to a question of law. The proposed reference also could not be sustained by invoking burden-shifting principles applicable where the statutory burden under section 123 applies.

Conclusion: The questions proposed were not referable questions of law and the reference application was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal refused to make a reference to the High Court because the matter was held to be one of factual appreciation rather than a question of law, leaving the confiscation-related findings undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the proposed reference challenges only the appreciation of evidence and the use of statements recorded under the Customs Act, without raising a distinct legal issue, no referable question of law arises.

---