9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (3) TMI 269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst the appellants by the Additional Collector of Customs, Madurai, on the ground that at the relevant time of import the goods in question viz. Cloves were canalised for the purpose of import and, therefore, the imports were in contravention of law. The proceedings resulted in the respective impugned orders appealed against. 3. In Customs Appeal Nos. 449/87 and 493/87 the value of the goods imported is the same viz. Rs. 2,07,319 and the quantity imported is also the same viz. 2000 kgs. of Cloves. In all the other Appeals the value of the goods imported and the quantity are the same. 4. Shri Venugopalan, the learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the appellants had admittedly placed orders with the suppliers in Ceylon when the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty may not be warranted in the facts and circumstances of this case against the appellants particularly when the goods in question were permissible for import under OGL under the relevant Licensing Policy at the time when the appellants had entered into contracts for import of the same, and also because of similar view being taken by the Collector of Customs, Madras, and other authorities of the Customs Department and also the Bench of the Tribunal, the quantum of fine may not be reduced. The learned Senior D.R. placed reliance on the ratio of the Full Bench ruling of the Delhi High Court in the case of Jain Exports Private Limited Another v. Union of India and Others, reported in 1987 (29) E.L.T. 753, and in particular placed reliance o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upra. The learned counsel for the appellants has also produced before me the orders passed by the Collector of Customs, Madras, dated 6-5-1987 referred to supra, and the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras, wherein also in similar circumstances no penalty was imposed on the parties concerned. 7. The next question that arises for my consideration is with reference to the quantum of fine. Imposition of a quantum of fine is purely in exercise of discretion by a quasijudicial authority like the Tribunal and such discretion should be exercised judiciously keeping in mind the profit margin of the goods. In the order of the Collector of Customs, Madras, dated 19-12-1986 in respect import of Cloves valued at Rs. 1,50,960 a fine of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntum of fine should be given in all these cases where 15% of fine has been imposed conforming to the quantum of 10% adopted by the very same adjudicating authority in two cases referred to above, I am not inclined to modify the order and reduce the quantum of fine, because the exercise of the discretion though marginally varies from one case to other cases cannot be said to be either arbitrary or perverse. A small variation by itself cannot be a circumstance warranting modification of the same conforming to a rigid formula. 9. In the result the penalty imposed on each of the appellants under the respective impugned orders is set aside and the fine imposed confirmed. Except for the above modifications, the appeals are otherwise dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
