2012 (10) TMI 77 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction reduction of redemption fine to 50% of what was imposed by the Commissioner of Customs Held that - Tribunal has the jurisdiction to reduce the redemption fine if he thinks it is just and proper - order passed by the Tribunal is just and equitable

Summary

Issues:
1. Reduction of redemption fine by the Tribunal.
2. Discretion of the Tribunal to interfere with redemption fine.
3. Applicability of Supreme Court judgment on interference with orders.

Analysis:

1. Reduction of redemption fine by the Tribunal:
The appeals were filed by the Revenue challenging the Tribunal's decision to reduce the redemption fine imposed by the Commissioner of Customs to 50%. The Tribunal based its decision on judgments from the Mumbai Bench, where redemption fines were reduced to 45% of CIF value in similar cases. The Tribunal granted relief to the assessee based on the consistency in reducing fines and penalties for similar imports. The departmental representative acknowledged the similarity of imports in the cited cases, leading to the Tribunal's decision. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal had no discretion to interfere with the redemption fine.

2. Discretion of the Tribunal to interfere with redemption fine:
The Revenue argued that the Tribunal lacked the discretion to interfere with the redemption fine. In support of this contention, reference was made to a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing that interference with redemption fines should only occur if the order is arbitrary or whimsical, leading to a gross miscarriage of justice. The judgment highlighted that the fixation of the quantum of redemption is at the discretion of authorities under the Customs Act, and courts should be cautious in interfering unless necessary.

3. Applicability of Supreme Court judgment on interference with orders:
The High Court analyzed the Supreme Court judgment to ascertain the extent of interference permissible with orders passed by authorities like the Tribunal and the Commissioner for Excise. The judgment clarified that courts should not interfere with such orders without justification, rather than suggesting that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to intervene in the Commissioner's orders. The High Court found the Tribunal's order to be just and equitable based on the principles outlined in the Supreme Court judgment. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Tribunal's decision to reduce the redemption fine.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to reduce the redemption fine, emphasizing the importance of discretion in such matters as outlined in the Supreme Court judgment. The analysis provided a comprehensive understanding of the issues raised, the legal principles applied, and the reasoning behind the High Court's decision to dismiss the appeals.