2011 (1) TMI 15 - SC - Customs

Requirement of specific licence at the time of import - importers, in the instant cases, did not possess the licence as required under the EXIM Policy. Additionally, in some cases, the quantity and price of the imported goods was mis-declared in the bills of entry - Held that - it is for the party applying for reference to clearly state the question of law which he seeks to be referred to the High Court and then it is for the High Court to consider whether any such question of law stated in the application for reference before it should be directed to be referred - It is a trite proposition that unless the correctness of facts, on the basis whereof an inference is drawn by the Tribunal, is put in issue, a question of law does not arise from its order - a standard formula cannot be laid down for imposition of redemption fine and penalty - the High Court was justified in declining to issue direction to the Tribunal to make a reference under Section 130A of the Act.

Issues:
Delay condonation and leave granted; Challenge to High Court orders rejecting applications under Section 130A of the Customs Act, 1962; Disposal of appeals involving common questions of law and facts; Confiscation of imported goods under Section 111(d) of the Act; Tribunal's decision on redemption fine and penalty reduction; High Court's rejection of Revenue's applications; Examination of questions of law arising from Tribunal's orders; Interpretation of Section 130A of the Act; Tribunal's final fact-finding authority; High Court's jurisdiction in reference applications.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay Condonation and Leave Granted:
The Supreme Court condoned the delay in special leave petitions and granted leave to appeal. The challenge was against orders passed by the High Court of Bombay in various Customs Application numbers rejecting applications filed by the Revenue under Section 130A of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. Confiscation of Imported Goods:
The imported goods were confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Act, but importers were given the option to redeem the goods by paying a redemption fine and penalty as per Sections 125 and 112(a) of the Act, respectively.

3. Tribunal's Decision on Redemption Fine and Penalty Reduction:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals by reducing the redemption fine and penalty based on similar cases, leading to the Revenue filing applications under Section 130A of the Act questioning the Tribunal's decisions.

4. High Court's Rejection of Revenue's Applications:
The High Court rejected the Revenue's applications, stating that no questions of law arose from the Tribunal's orders, emphasizing that the Tribunal's decisions were based on findings of fact and not arbitrary.

5. Interpretation of Section 130A of the Act:
The Court referred to Section 130A of the Act, highlighting the requirement for parties to clearly state questions of law for reference to the High Court, emphasizing that a question of law does not arise if the correctness of facts is not challenged.

6. Tribunal's Final Fact-Finding Authority:
The judgment cited precedents to establish that the Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority, and High Courts can only intervene if a finding of fact by the Tribunal is challenged as being perverse.

7. High Court's Jurisdiction in Reference Applications:
The High Court's jurisdiction in reference applications is limited to answering questions of law referred to it, and it can only interfere with Tribunal's findings on facts if such findings are challenged as perverse.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's decision to reject the Revenue's applications under Section 130A of the Act, as no questions of law were found to arise from the Tribunal's orders due to the absence of a challenge to the factual findings.

← Previous Next →