2014 (10) TMI 267 - HC - Customs

Confiscation of foreign currency - Whether the Tribunal was justified in reducing the redemption fine and penalty without assigning any reasons - Held that - The Appellate Commissioner who passed an order for redemption of the confiscated currency in his order has stated in the light of the case law cited by the assessee in favour of release of seized currencies on redemption fine, he was inclined to agree with their contention for the reason that the absolute confiscation was rather very harsh on them and therefore he ordered for release of the seized foreign currencies with redemption fine - The adjudicating authority after enquiry, on the basis of the legal evidence on record has recorded a finding of fact which is not found fault with by any of the authorities. Even the assessee did not contest those finding of fact, it is thereafter he has passed an order of confiscation and also imposed penalty. Such a well considered order cannot be interfered with by the higher authorities even though they have the power to modify or vary such orders, without assigning any reasons. In that view of tin matter, the approach of the higher authorities are whimsical, unsupportable and contrary to law - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against reduction of redemption fine and penalty by Tribunal without proper reasoning.

Analysis:
The case involved an appellant caught with illegal possession of US $21,800, not purchased from authorized dealers, attempting to smuggle out of India. The adjudicating authority imposed confiscation and penalty, upheld by the Appellate Commissioner who reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 6,00,000. The appellant appealed to the Tribunal seeking further reduction, which relied on an irrelevant judgment to reduce the fine to Rs. 2,50,000 and penalty to Rs. 50,000. The High Court found the Tribunal's approach improper, noting the lack of valid reasons for the reduction. The Court emphasized that the Appellate Commissioner's decision was well-considered, based on legal evidence, and not contested by the appellant. Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and restored the Appellate Commissioner's decision, answering the substantial question in favor of the Revenue and against the appellant.