- (1.) This appeal under Section 130(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 28th April, 1997 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (in short CEGAT, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) refusing thereby to refer questions of law as set out in paragraph 12 of the application filed by the appellant before this Court observing that sufficiency of evidence does not raise any question of law.
(2.) The appellant by filing an application under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act before the Tribunal requested the Tribunal to refer the following three questions for reference to this Court which was refused by the Tribunal by the impugned order. The questions of law raised by the appellant are set out below: "(i Whether or not authenticity, genuineness and voluntary nature of confessional statement recorded immediately after seizure under Section 108 of the Customs Act, can be questioned especially when the respondents at a later date categorically certified these statements to be correct and true? (ii Whether belated retraction of confessional statements has any legal validity/acceptability or not? (iii)Whether in quasi-judicial proceedings an offence is to be proved with mathematical precision or preponderance of probabilities is sufficient?"
(3.) Besides that, the appellant has raised another question of law before this Court which runs as follows : "Whether the burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 was shifted to the Customs Authorities in the present case?";