Reprocessing of returned defective goods without separate handling did not raise a referable question of law.

Returned defective goods that were received under declaration, mixed with the running lot for reprocessing, and properly accounted for did not give rise to a referable question of law. The factual record showed no dispute about receipt or accounting, and separate reprocessing was found impracticable in the manufacturing process without stopping production. On that basis, the proposed question was treated as lacking legal substance, and the reference application was held not maintainable and dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reference application raised a question of law warranting reference to the High Court where the returned defective goods were received under declaration, mixed in the running lot for reprocessing, and accounts of receipt and reprocessing were maintained.

Analysis: The factual position showed no dispute about receipt of the defective goods under declaration or their being taken up for reprocessing by mixing them with the running lot. The only grievance was that the reprocessing was not done separately. In the circumstances of the goods and the manufacturing process, separate reprocessing was not feasible without stopping the main process, and the relevant accounts regarding receipt and mixing of the returned goods were maintained. The proposed question therefore did not disclose a real question of law for reference.

Conclusion: The reference application was not maintainable on the framed question and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where returned goods are duly received and accounted for, and separate reprocessing is impracticable in the manufacturing process, the absence of separate reprocessing does not by itself raise a referable question of law under Rule 173L.

---