Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the proposed questions concerning the application of margin of profit and the quantum of redemption fine raised any referable question of law, and whether the earlier order relied upon laid down a universal rule fixing a standard margin of profit.
Analysis: The questions proposed for reference challenged only the application of a particular margin of profit to the facts of the case. The determination of the appropriate margin of profit in the circumstances of a particular import depends upon factual considerations, including market price, duty incidence, and surrounding conditions, and does not by itself give rise to a question of law. The earlier order referred to was confined to its own facts and did not lay down an inflexible rule that 100% margin of profit must apply to all imports.
Conclusion: No referable question of law arose from the application for reference, and the reference application was rightly dismissed. The earlier decision was held to be fact-specific and not a general precedent fixing a universal margin of profit.
Ratio Decidendi: The quantum of margin of profit and redemption fine, when determined on the facts of a particular import, is a question of fact unless a legal principle is shown to have been wrongly applied; a fact-specific prior order does not establish a binding universal rate.