Constructive possession is not essential for Customs penalty where confiscable prohibited goods and evidentiary issues are assessed on record.

Constructive possession was treated as unnecessary for penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act where imported goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) for contravention of prohibition. The Tribunal also treated objections based on the statement of a co-accused or smuggler, and the absence of cross-examination, as matters of evidentiary appreciation rather than independent questions of law. On that approach, no question of law arose from the Tribunal's order, and the reference application was rejected, leaving the penalty view undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether any question of law arose from the Tribunal's order on the requirements for penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, including constructive possession, reliance on the statement of a co-accused or smuggler, and the need for cross-examination.

Analysis: The Tribunal's reasoning proceeded on the basis that constructive possession was not an ingredient for imposition of penalty under Section 112(b) where the goods were imported in contravention of prohibition and were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d). The stated questions concerning the reliability of the statement and the absence of cross-examination were treated as matters of evidentiary appreciation on the record as a whole, not as independent questions of law.

Conclusion: No question of law arose from the Tribunal's order.

Final Conclusion: The reference application was rejected, leaving the Tribunal's view on penalty under Section 112(b) undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A reference will not lie where the challenge is confined to appreciation of evidence and the conclusion that constructive possession is not a necessary ingredient for penalty under the governing customs penalty provision.

---