1995 (8) TMI 114 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Reduction in the quantum of fine imposed under the Customs Act, 1962 for the import of cloves.
- Disagreement among members of the Tribunal regarding the appropriate percentage for the redemption fine.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were against fines and penalties imposed for the import of cloves. The appellants did not contest the appeals on merits but sought a reduction in the quantum of fine. The appellants referred to previous Tribunal decisions where fines were reduced to 15% of the value of goods. The Ld. D.R. had no objection to following the majority view of reducing fines to 15%.

2. The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that previous rulings had reduced fines to 15% in similar cases to avoid discriminatory treatment. Following the judicial norm and propriety, the Tribunal modified the impugned orders, reducing the quantum of fine to 15% of the value of the goods while confirming the penalties imposed.

3. However, Member (T) dissented, disagreeing with the majority view. Member (T) argued that the fixation of redemption fine and penalty is discretionary and should be considered independently in each case. Member (T) highlighted that the goods were released on a bank guarantee and that the redemption fine of Rs. 88,000, about 25% of the value, was not excessive given the circumstances.

4. The Tribunal deliberated on the difference of opinion regarding the redemption fine percentage. Member (J) supported reducing the fine to 15% based on precedents and the Third Member's agreement. Member (T) argued that 25% was justifiable, considering the specific circumstances of the case. Ultimately, the Tribunal concurred with Member (J) and fixed the redemption fine at 15% of the value, following the majority opinion and judicial discipline.

5. The final order was issued, setting the redemption fine at 15% of the value based on the majority opinion. The case was returned to the Regular Bench for further proceedings.

6. The judgment highlighted the importance of consistency in decision-making and adherence to precedents in determining the quantum of fines in customs cases, emphasizing the need for uniformity and fairness in such matters.