2015 (7) TMI 1149 - HC - Customs

Seizure of Foreign Currency - reducing the quantum of redemption fine and penalty - the decision in the case of Shri S. Pandithurai v. Commissioner of Customs 2009 (3) TMI 1046 - CESTAT CHENNAI relied upon and order of reduced penalty passed - Held that - Even a cursory perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal reveals that the Tribunal has relied on another decision of its own in Pandithurai s case for reducing the redemption fine and penalty. However, from the order of the Tribunal it is evident, that the Tribunal has not discussed the applicability of Pandithurai s case to the facts of the present case for it to reduce the redemption fine and penalty. It is also not clear under what circumstances and what set of facts, fine and penalty were reduced in Pandithurai s case. Such a conduct of the Tribunal in passing an order mechanically without adverting to the facts of the said case but equating the same to the present case is highly deplorable. Equally deplorable is the conduct of the Department in not producing before us the decision of Pandithurai s case. We do not approve of the Tribunal reducing the penalty or fine on the ratio laid down in another decision. Each case will have to be decided on its own merits and the ratio, if any, to be followed on the legal plea and not otherwise. It may be so that a particular decision could be taken into consideration, but no straight jacket formula can be adopted, on the basis of one decision, to reduce the quantum of fine or penalty in another case. If the facts in Pandithurai s case had been discussed by the Tribunal, probably it would have thrown much light, on the decision arrived at in that case which would have prompted the Tribunal to reduce the quantum. As already pointed out above, the department has not placed the decision in Pandithurai s case before this Court and the Department counsel is also equally blank about the decision, which is staring on his face in the impugned order. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter has to be remanded to the Tribunal to consider the issue afresh and give a reasoned order insofar as fine and penalty is concerned. Appeal disposed off - matter remanded.

Summary

Issues:
1. Reduction of fine and penalty by the Tribunal interfering with discretionary power of adjudicating authority under Customs Act.
2. Reduction of fine and penalty by Tribunal without assigning reasons and following own earlier decisions.
3. Interference by Tribunal with order of original authority passed under Section 125 of the Act regarding redemption of goods.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the seizure of foreign and Indian currency from the first respondent at the airport. After adjudication, the Commissioner of Customs allowed redemption of the seized currency on payment of a fine and penalty. The Tribunal modified the redemption fine and penalty without providing any reasons, relying on a previous decision. The High Court criticized the Tribunal for not discussing the applicability of the previous case to the present one and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for a reasoned order.

2. The Tribunal's action of reducing the fine and penalty without proper justification was deemed unacceptable by the High Court. Each case should be decided on its own merits, and a blanket application of a previous decision is not appropriate. The High Court emphasized the need for a detailed examination of facts in each case before determining the quantum of fine and penalty. The lack of reasoning in the Tribunal's order led to the decision to remand the matter for a fresh consideration.

3. The High Court highlighted the importance of providing a reasoned order when reducing fines and penalties in customs cases. The Tribunal's reliance on a previous decision without proper analysis of its applicability to the current case was criticized. The Court stressed that decisions should be based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case, rather than a mechanical application of past judgments. Remanding the matter back to the Tribunal was deemed necessary for a thorough reevaluation and a well-reasoned decision on the fine and penalty.