1996 (11) TMI 242 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Absolute confiscation of a revolver under the Import Trade Control Policy.
2. Validity of absolute confiscation and redemption fine.
3. Discretion of the officer in determining the redemption fine.

Analysis:
1. The case involves the absolute confiscation of a revolver, ERMA 32 bore, due to a violation of the Import Trade Control Policy. The appellant, a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, possessed the weapon for self-protection, holding a valid license. The appellant appealed against the order upholding the confiscation, arguing that redemption of firearms was a common practice in similar cases. The appellant cited previous tribunal orders allowing redemption of weapons imported under comparable circumstances. The appellant's representative proposed a redemption fine of about 400%, while the Respondent contended that the suggested fine was inadequate.

2. The Tribunal considered the submissions and referred to a previous case where it was observed that a practice of redemption existed in the Customs House for prohibited goods. Upholding absolute confiscation in this case would be discriminatory, given the established practice. However, the Tribunal expressed reservations regarding the redemption fine. The relevant section allowed the officer adjudging confiscation to determine the fine, with the maximum fine not exceeding the market price of the confiscated goods, minus applicable duty. The Tribunal emphasized that factors such as the recipient being a member of the judiciary could influence the officer's decision. The Tribunal decided to leave the determination of the redemption fine to the officer, based on factors like market price and other considerations.

3. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the previous orders and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner was directed to permit redemption of the revolver with an appropriate redemption fine. The Assistant Commissioner was instructed to provide a rationale for determining the fine, considering various factors, including market price and any other relevant information available to the officer. The decision highlighted the discretion of the officer in determining the redemption fine and the importance of recording the logic behind such determination.