https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95650 A challenge to a proposed reference under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 was held not to raise a referable question of law. The dispute over the distinction between Regulation 18 and Regulation 20 was treated as factual and application-based, not legal, and the argument for treating the provisions alike did not change that character. The regulations were also described as plain and unambiguous, so purposive construction could not be used to add words not found in the text. A complaint that the appeal had been allowed on technicalities was likewise treated as an attack on the correctness of the Tribunal's view, not a question of law. en-us Mon, 29 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:31:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95650 A challenge to a proposed reference under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 was held not to raise a referable question of law. The dispute over the distinction between Regulation 18 and Regulation 20 was treated as factual and application-based, not legal, and the argument for treating the provisions alike did not change that character. The regulations were also described as plain and unambiguous, so purposive construction could not be used to add words not found in the text. A complaint that the appeal had been allowed on technicalities was likewise treated as an attack on the correctness of the Tribunal's view, not a question of law. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 29 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95650