2011 (4) TMI 67 - HC - Customs

Imposition of Redemption Fine - The appellant imported goods and sought clearance thereof under the provisions of the Act - It was found that the assessee had wrongly declared lesser value of goods and the import was against the import policy - Accordingly, the goods were held to be liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act - It is not disputed that the import by the petitioner was illegal - Once it is so, there is no ground to interfere with the quantum of fine and penalty to be levied - Quantum of fine and penalty depends upon facts and circumstances of a case for which there cannot be any inflexible criteria - The Tribunal having determined the quantum having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in absence of perversity, it cannot be held that there is any illegality therein - Hence,the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Consideration of chartered accountant's certificate and actual losses incurred.
4. Judicial uniformity in fixing redemption fine and penalty.
5. Allegations of misuse of power and abuse of process of law.

Issue 1:
The appellant appealed against the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, raising substantial questions of law regarding the imposition of redemption fine and penalty.

Issue 2:
The appellant imported goods with a wrongly declared value, leading to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act. The adjudicating authority allowed redemption of goods upon payment of a fine and imposed a penalty. The appellate authority and Tribunal upheld the order, reducing the fine and penalty amounts based on the circumstances of the case.

Issue 3:
The appellant argued that the quantum of fine and penalty was excessive and disproportionate to the offense, citing the non-consideration of the chartered accountant's certificate and actual losses incurred. However, the court rejected this contention, stating that the import was illegal, and the fine and penalty amounts were determined based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

Issue 4:
Regarding the judicial uniformity in fixing redemption fine and penalty, the court held that there is no fixed criteria for determining the quantum, and it depends on the specific facts of each case. The Tribunal's decision to reduce the fine and penalty was deemed appropriate, and no illegality was found in their determination.

Issue 5:
The appellant alleged misuse of power and abuse of process of law by the respondents. However, the court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, stating that there was no substantial question of law arising from the case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed by the court.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal reasoning and outcomes related to the appeal under consideration.