2011 (3) TMI 845 - HC - Customs

Discretionary power - find that though power under Sections 111 and 112 of confiscation and penalty are available, under Section 125 of the Customs Act, Authority also enjoys discretionary power to impose fine in lieu of confiscation. Tribunal in exercise of such discretionary powers ordered reduction in fine and also reduced penalty - Such being exercise of discretionary power, no question of law arising - Appeal is therefore, dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Competence of CESTAT to relax statutory prohibition on import of Indian currency.
2. Empowerment of CESTAT to release confiscated prohibited goods.
3. Justifiability of CESTAT's order relaxing prohibition on goods declared by the importer.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the appeal by the Revenue against a tribunal's judgment regarding the relaxation of statutory prohibition on the import of Indian currency. The tribunal had reduced the fine and penalty imposed on a non-resident traveler found carrying Indian currency above the permissible limit. The main issue was whether CESTAT had the authority to relax the prohibition imposed by the Government of India. The High Court observed that while Sections 111 and 112 of the Customs Act provided for confiscation and penalty, Section 125 granted discretionary power to impose a fine in lieu of confiscation. The tribunal had exercised this discretionary power in reducing the fine and penalty. The High Court found no question of law arising from the exercise of discretionary power and dismissed the appeal.

2. The second issue revolved around whether CESTAT had the power to release goods that were confiscated as prohibited items. In this case, the traveler had declared the currency he was carrying, leading the tribunal to take a lenient view and reduce the penalty. The High Court noted that the tribunal had relied on previous decisions to support its stance that absolute confiscation was not warranted in this scenario. The Court upheld the tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the discretionary power under Section 125 allowed for such reductions in penalties and fines.

3. The final issue addressed the justifiability of CESTAT's order relaxing the prohibition on goods declared by the importer. The High Court examined the orders on record and the statutory provisions, concluding that the tribunal's exercise of discretionary power to reduce the fine and penalty was valid. The Court reiterated that under Section 125 of the Customs Act, authorities had the discretion to impose fines in lieu of confiscation. Since the tribunal had acted within this discretionary framework, the High Court found no legal question to be addressed and dismissed the appeal.