1999 (2) TMI 290 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Redemption fine quantum for import of Cassia - Consistency in applying redemption fine percentage - Precedent judgments of the Tribunal - Application of ratio from previous decisions - Heavy demurrage not being a determining factor - Appeal based on quantum of redemption fine.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal against an Order-in-Appeal where the redemption fine of 125% imposed for the import of Cassia was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant contested this decision solely on the issue of the quantum of redemption fine. The appellant argued that previous Tribunal decisions consistently capped the redemption fine at 75% for similar cases, even without heavy demurrage being a deciding factor. The appellant highlighted subsequent decisions by the same Commissioner (Appeals) where the redemption fine was indeed reduced to 75% based on Tribunal precedents. Citing various legal cases, the appellant emphasized the importance of consistency and precedent in such matters.

The Revenue, represented by the JDR, supported the Order-in-Appeal, stating that the Commissioner (Appeals) had considered all relevant facts before making the decision. Upon reviewing the submissions and case records, the Tribunal noted a series of consistent judgments where the redemption fine for illegally imported Cassia was fixed at 75% of the CIF value. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had followed this ratio in later decisions, even in cases without heavy demurrage, where goods were released on payment of redemption fine. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner's reasoning for not applying the same precedent due to the absence of heavy demurrage was not logically sound. Therefore, the Tribunal modified the Order-in-Appeal, reducing the redemption fine to 75% of the CIF value for the imports under consideration.

In conclusion, the appeals were deemed successful, and the redemption fine was adjusted to 75% of the CIF value in line with the consistent precedent set by previous Tribunal decisions. The judgment underscores the significance of applying established ratios and maintaining consistency in determining redemption fines, irrespective of the presence of heavy demurrage, to uphold the rule of law and ensure fair treatment across similar cases.