Reference limitation and scope of question sustained as the matter was directed to the High Court for consideration.

The reference application was treated as timely because limitation was counted from the date of receipt shown on the departmental copy of the order. An omission to mention key chains in one part of the earlier order was treated as inadvertent, as the appeal, departmental arguments, and the order read as a whole covered both PVC pouches and key chains. The Tribunal also held that the merits objections did not justify refusing reference and that the question required consideration by the High Court, so the reference was directed to be made accordingly.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reference application was within time; whether the reference question properly covered both PVC pouches and key chains; and whether the question should be referred to the High Court.

Analysis: The application was held to be in time on the basis of the date of receipt shown on the departmental copy of the order. The omission of an express reference to key chains in one part of the earlier order was treated as inadvertent, since the appeal, the departmental arguments, and the order as a whole covered both items. The Tribunal found that the objections raised on merits did not justify refusal of reference and that the question required consideration by the High Court.

Outcome: The reference was directed to be made to the High Court and the registry was asked to forward the papers accordingly.

---