9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (6) TMI 66 - HC - CustomsConfiscation redemption fine and penalty held that - A quasi judicial authority in exercising a power of discretion has to do it in an objective manner and cannot do so in a mechanical way - no peculiar facts were pleaded or materials placed to show that the redemption fine imposed at 10% and penalty at 5% is on a lower side - , the Tribunal has given its own reasons in the matter of fixing a rate at which the tine should be imposed. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is a perverse finding. What would have been the rate had the matter been dealt with by this Court sitting in the armchair of the Appellate Authority, however, cannot be substituted - . Any authority exercising the power is also bound by law of precedence and it is necessary to maintain consistency as otherwise it will be characterised as discriminatory order of tribunal maintained.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to appeals under the Customs Act. 2. Legality of the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the import of second-hand photocopiers. 3. Discretion exercised by the Tribunal in reducing the redemption fine and penalty. 4. Consistency in the imposition of redemption fines and penalties in similar cases. Analysis: 1. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to Appeals under the Customs Act: The appeals presented beyond the prescribed period included a petition for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court referenced the Apex Court's decision in Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise v. Hongo India (P) Ltd., which held that in the absence of any express provision making the Limitation Act applicable, Section 5 stood excluded. However, the court noted that Section 130(9) of the Customs Act provides that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, relating to appeals to the High Court shall apply. Therefore, the appeal provision contained in the Code of Civil Procedure is expressly made applicable, and the delay had already been condoned by an order of a court. 2. Legality of the Redemption Fine and Penalty Imposed on the Import of Second-Hand Photocopiers: The respondent imported second-hand photocopiers without obtaining a license, violating the ITC regulation and EXIM policy. The Original Authority found that the respondent violated excise provisions and initiated proceedings. The value declared by the respondent was not accepted and was refixed based on the Chartered Engineer's certificate. The goods were liable for confiscation but allowed to be redeemed on payment of fine and penalties. The respondent contended that the redemption fine and penalty were imposed arbitrarily and sought reduction based on precedents. 3. Discretion Exercised by the Tribunal in Reducing the Redemption Fine and Penalty: The Tribunal reduced the redemption fine to 10% and the penalty to 4%, considering the enhanced value based on the Chartered Engineer's certificate. The Tribunal followed precedents and emphasized that in the absence of evidence showing the respondent paid more than declared, the reduced rates were appropriate. The court found that the Tribunal exercised its discretion objectively and did not act in a mechanical way. The reduction was based on the totality of facts and circumstances, and no substantial question of law arose. 4. Consistency in the Imposition of Redemption Fines and Penalties in Similar Cases: The Department contended that the Tribunal erred in uniformly applying the rates of redemption fine and penalty without considering individual case facts. However, the court noted that the Tribunal followed precedents to maintain consistency. The Tribunal's decision was not arbitrary or discriminatory, as it was based on similar facts and circumstances. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining consistency to avoid decisions being characterized as discriminatory. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeals, finding no merit in the Department's contentions. The Tribunal's decision to reduce the redemption fine and penalty was upheld as it was based on well-founded principles and consistent with similar cases. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
