2003 (2) TMI 87 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are:
1. Whether the adjudicating authority has the power to prescribe a fine for re-export when liability to confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act is established.
2. Whether penalty is leviable when misdeclaration leads to confiscation of goods and re-export is sought.

Issue 1 - Power to Prescribe Fine for Re-export:
The reference was made due to a difference of opinion on whether redemption fine and penalty can be imposed by the adjudicating authority when re-export is permitted. The Tribunal clarified that the power to impose a redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act exists even when permission for re-export is granted. Various decisions were cited, including Padia Sales Corporation and HCL Hewlett Packard Ltd., to support the position that redemption fine can be imposed even in cases of re-export.

Issue 2 - Levying Penalty for Misdeclaration and Re-export:
The Tribunal analyzed various decisions, such as Siemens Public Communication Networks Ltd. v. CC (Airport), Calcutta, to determine whether redemption fine and penalty are justified when re-export is allowed. The learned DR argued that permission for re-export is irrelevant for imposing a redemption fine when goods are confiscated. The Tribunal referred to legal provisions in Section 125 and Section 111 of the Customs Act to conclude that the adjudicating authority can impose redemption fine and penalty even when re-export is permitted.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed that the adjudicating authority has the power to impose redemption fine and penalty even when permission for re-export is granted. The decision was based on the interpretation of relevant provisions of the Customs Act and previous legal precedents. The reference was answered in the affirmative, confirming the authority to levy fines and penalties in such cases.