2016 (8) TMI 431 - HC - Customs

Cancellation of licence - Forfeiture of security deposit penalty proportionately of punishment - Held that - when the discretion has been exercised, and considering the facts and circumstances, such discretion exercised cannot be said to be per verse, which would be a case for interference in exercise of power with this Court. It is required to be stated that when two views are possible and if one is opted by the lower authority, such would not call for interference. It is found that even if the principles observed in the said decision are considered, it cannot be said that the discretion exercised by the Tribunal in the impugned order is perverse, as sought to be canvassed no case found for interference.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order modifying forfeiture of security deposit.
2. Contention of appellant regarding cancellation of license, penalty imposition, and forfeiture of security deposit.
3. Tribunal's interference based on proportionality of punishment.
4. Tribunal's considerations for reducing penalty and forfeiting security deposit.
5. Exercise of discretion by Tribunal and absence of perversity.
6. Comparison with the decision of the Apex Court in a similar case.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal in this case challenges the order of the Tribunal modifying the forfeiture of the security deposit. The Tribunal confirmed the forfeiture of the security deposit and allowed the respondent to apply for a fresh license with a new security deposit as per the law.

2. The appellant contended that the Commissioner of Customs had canceled the license, imposed a penalty, and forfeited the security deposit due to the breach of regulations by the respondent-broker. The appellant argued that the penalty was rightfully imposed, and the Tribunal erred in reducing it. The appellant cited a decision of the Apex Court to support their argument.

3. The Tribunal interfered in the matter based on the proportionality of punishment. It considered various aspects, including the involvement of a legitimate party in the transactions, the role of the employee in the lapse, the age of the respondent, and the period of license suspension. These factors influenced the Tribunal's decision to reduce the penalty and forfeit the security deposit.

4. The Tribunal found that the respondent's actions were not as severe as initially perceived, leading to the decision to reduce the penalty to ?50,000 and forfeit the security deposit. The respondent was allowed to apply for a fresh license after considering the circumstances.

5. The High Court, after reviewing the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal and the facts of the case, concluded that the discretion was not perverse and did not warrant interference. The court emphasized that as long as the lower authority's decision is a plausible one among two possible views, interference is not justified.

6. The comparison with a similar case decided by the Apex Court revealed distinctions in the circumstances. The High Court found that the principles applied in the cited case did not align with the present situation, emphasizing the need for reasonable exercise of discretionary power in imposing penalties based on the gravity of the offense.

In conclusion, the High Court found no grounds for interference, dismissed the appeal as meritless, and upheld the Tribunal's decision regarding the modification of the forfeiture of the security deposit.