2014 (1) TMI 1461 - AT - Customs

Imposition of redemption fine - Smuggling of gold bars - Confiscation of goods - Imposition of penalty - Held that - Considering the liberal policy of import of gold prevailing at the time of seizure, it is difficult to agree that the appellant would have made a profit of 40% of the value of seized gold if it did not get seized and then confiscated. The redemption fine that was generally being imposed for seizures at the relevant time was broadly between 10% to 25% of seizure value. It is only proper that this appellant is treated more or less on par with similarly placed offenders. In this particular case there is higher margin accruing to the appellant due to the increase in market value of the goods between time of seizure and time of redemption. So a comparatively higher limit of redemption fine can be adopted - Redemption fine reduced - However, penalty sustained - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Redemption fine imposed under Section 125 of the Customs Act in respect of seized gold bars; Quantum of redemption fine and penalty imposed; Comparison of redemption fine with similar cases; Market value considerations for redemption fine; Reasonableness of penalty imposed.

Analysis:
1. The case involves a dispute over the redemption fine imposed under Section 125 of the Customs Act regarding 100 gold bars of foreign origin seized by the police and handed over to Customs and Central Excise officers. The Tribunal in the first round of litigation upheld that the gold bars were smuggled into India but decided against absolute confiscation due to changes in government policy, opting for a redemption fine and penalty instead. The matter was remitted for determining the fine and penalty.

2. In the de novo adjudication, the adjudicating authority imposed a redemption fine of Rs.20 lakhs and a penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs on the appellant. The appellant contests the quantum of the redemption fine and penalty, considering it excessively high in comparison to the seizure value of the gold bars and citing precedents where lower fines were imposed for similar cases.

3. The appellant argues that the redemption fine, being nearly 40% of the seizure value, is unreasonably high given the market conditions and policies at the time. Citing cases with fines ranging from 10% to 25% of the seized goods' value, the appellant seeks a reduction in the redemption fine. Additionally, a comparable case where a lower penalty was imposed is highlighted to support the appeal for a reduction in the fine.

4. The Revenue's representative contends that the redemption fine, calculated based on the increased market value of the goods, is reasonable at about 20% of the current value. The AR argues against reducing the redemption fine and penalty, emphasizing the market price appreciation of the confiscated goods and the nominal nature of the imposed penalty.

5. After considering both arguments, the Tribunal acknowledges the liberal import policy in force during the seizure and the market value increase between seizure and redemption. The Tribunal finds the redemption fine of Rs. 20 lakhs excessive and reduces it to Rs. 11 lakhs, aligning it with fines imposed in similar cases. The penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs is deemed reasonable and remains unchanged.

6. Consequently, the appeal is partially allowed, with the redemption fine reduced to Rs. 11 lakhs, maintaining the penalty at Rs. 3 lakhs. The decision was pronounced in open court on 11-12-13.