2017 (5) TMI 1439 - AT - Customs

Redemption fine - Central Board of Excise & Custom s instruction dated 06.10.2006 - Section 125 of the Act - Held that - discretionary power u/s 125 of the Act, 1962 would require to be exercised judiciously. The main requirement of judicial decision is to give reason - In the present case, the Adjudicating Authority had not given any reason for the purpose of assessment of the amount of fine. Hence, such order cannot be sustained in the eye of law - the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to decide afresh - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Imported goods confiscation under Customs Act, 1962, reduction of penalty, remand by Calcutta High Court for fine assessment under Section 125 of the Act, 1962, justification of redemption fine quantum, relevance of legal issues raised by the intervener.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the importation of Boric acid leading to the absolute confiscation of goods and imposition of a penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal initially upheld the confiscation but reduced the penalty. Subsequently, the matter was remanded by the Calcutta High Court for assessing the fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Act, 1962.

2. The Tribunal rejected an application by an intervener, citing lack of aggrievement based on the decision of a Larger Bench. The intervener was allowed to address legal issues during the appeal hearing. The scope of the appeal was limited to the justification of the redemption fine determined by the Adjudicating Authority.

3. The appellant argued that the imported goods had deteriorated in quality and incurred significant demurrage costs. Reference was made to a Kerala High Court case stating that registration under the Insecticides Act, 1968, was not necessary for importing Boric Acid.

4. The Adjudicating Authority's decision on the redemption fine was found lacking in consideration of relevant factors such as market price and demurrage. The Calcutta High Court's remand order required a judicious exercise of discretion under Section 125 of the Act, 1962. The lack of reasoning in the Authority's assessment rendered the order unsustainable.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision considering all relevant factors and in compliance with the law. The appeal by the appellant was allowed for a remand.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, procedural steps, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case.