2015 (11) TMI 763 - HC - Customs

Imposition of redemption fine - Confiscation of goods - Demand of differential duty - Short payment of duty - Settlement commission directed for confiscation of goods and imposed redemption fine - Held that - from a reading of the entire order of the Settlement Commission that this direction is patently inconsistent with the conclusions reached by the Settlement Commission and noted above. We, therefore, are of the opinion that such a direction and with regard to imposition of fine cannot be sustained. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, therefore, to the extent noted by us, the order of the Settlement Commission is erroneous and illegal and the Settlement Commission clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the appropriation - We quash and set aside the order of the Settlement Commission to the limited extent of imposition of fine and the appropriation - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Settlement Commission's order challenged for imposition of fine.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the Settlement Commission's order concerning the imposition of a fine in lieu of confiscation of seized cars. The petitioner argued that the fine should be paid by the person who executed the Bonds before the authorities, not by the petitioner. The counsel contended that the vehicles were seized from a different individual, provisionally released to him on execution of Bonds and Bank Guarantees by him, making the direction to appropriate the fine from the petitioner unjustifiable. The court, after hearing both parties, found no material to support the direction of imposing the fine on the petitioner and emphasized that clarity on whom the fine should be imposed and paid is essential. The court noted that the Settlement Commission's order was erroneous and illegal in directing the appropriation of the fine from the petitioner. Therefore, the court quashed the order to the extent of the fine imposition and directed the Settlement Commission to redetermine the fine, if any, in accordance with the law, ensuring a fair hearing for all parties involved.

The court observed that the Settlement Commission's direction on imposing the fine was inconsistent with its own conclusions. The court held that such a direction, regarding the imposition of a fine, cannot be sustained in the present case. The court emphasized that the Settlement Commission exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the appropriation of the fine from the petitioner. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order of the Settlement Commission related to the imposition of the fine and appropriation. The court instructed the Settlement Commission to reconsider the extent of the fine, if necessary, by hearing all parties involved and issuing a fresh order. The court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the amount or appropriation of the fine and left all contentions regarding the fine open for further consideration.

In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition with no costs, directing the Settlement Commission to promptly review the application. The court specified that its decision regarding the fine should not interfere with other aspects of the Settlement Commission's order, leaving those aspects untouched. The court's primary concern was the erroneous imposition of the fine, and it sought a fair and lawful redetermination of the fine through a fresh order after due consideration of all relevant parties' arguments.