Reference jurisdiction failed where export clearances could not be specifically correlated with factory records.

The article addresses reference jurisdiction on whether questions of law arose from a Tribunal order on excluding clearances claimed to have been exported through merchant-exporters when computing eligibility under exemption notifications. It states that the first proposed question on affidavits did not arise because the Tribunal had not decided their genuineness or admissibility; the second was essentially factual, concerning whether the exports could be linked to specific factory clearances through shipping and other records; and the third was academic because an affirmative answer would not alter the conclusion that the exports could not be specifically correlated with the clearances. No referable question of law was found, and reference was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether any question of law arose for reference to the High Court from the Tribunal's order concerning exclusion of clearances said to be exported through merchant-exporters while computing eligibility under the notifications.

Analysis: The first proposed question relating to reliance on affidavits did not arise from the Tribunal's order, because the Tribunal had not decided the genuineness or acceptability of the affidavits. The second proposed question was essentially one of fact, namely whether the exports claimed were of the applicant's goods and could be linked to particular clearances by reference to shipping documents and other records. The third question was only academic, since even an affirmative answer would not affect the Tribunal's conclusion that the claimed exports could not be specifically correlated with the factory clearances.

Conclusion: No referable question of law arose, and the request for reference was declined.

---