9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with almost similar facts and the issues raised also being similar, we propose to dispose of all these ten appeals by this common judgment and order. 2. These appeals have been filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Bombay High Court as also by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai. The High Court refused to entertain the Reference Applications filed in some of the aforesaid appeals on the ground that no question of law arises therein in each of those cases and on that ground, the petitions filed before the High Court were rejected. 3. The Commissioner by filing these appeals has challenged the legality of the orders of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has passed orders reducing the amount of redemption fine and also the quantum of penalty imposed by the Commissioner in all the aforesaid cases. 4. Contention raised on behalf of the Appellant in these cases is that the Tribunal was not justified in reducing the amount of redemption fine imposed on the parties as also the quantum of penalty imposed, without giving strong and cogent reasons for differing with the order of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of any other goods, give to the owner of the goods or, where such owner is not known, the person from whose possession or custody such goods have been seized, an option to pay in lieu of confiscation such fine as the said officer thinks fit: Provided that, without prejudice to the provisions of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 115, such fine shall not exceed the market price of the goods confiscated, less in the case of imported goods the duty chargeable thereon. (2) Where any fine in lieu of confiscation of goods is imposed under sub-section (1), the owner of such goods or the person referred to in sub-section (1), shall, in addition, be liable to any duty and charges payable in respect of such goods. 11. Section 112 of the Act deals with the provision of imposition of penalty for improper importation of goods. What is relevant here is the provision (i) of Section 112, which makes it clear that any person whose goods are liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Act would also be liable in the case of goods in respect of which any prohibition is in force under the Act or any other law for the time being in force, to a penalty not exceeding the value of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents has been retained or kept by the Department. Therefore, in our considered opinion, in the aforesaid appeals, no useful purpose would be served by interfering with the orders passed by the Tribunal, particularly in view of the fact that even the Department is unable at this time to ascertain and determine the market price of the goods confiscated so as to enable the authorities to levy appropriate redemption fine. In that view of the matter, we dismiss these appeals on the aforesaid grounds leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 16. Having decided the aforesaid appeals in the manner, we now proceed to decide C.A. No. 2657 of 2007. Having gone through the records of this case and having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we find that the Tribunal has reduced the quantum of redemption fine as also the penalty in the present case also but the said reduction appears to be justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. For the reasons stated by the Tribunal, we are not inclined to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Tribunal in that regard. Reduction of redemption fine as also the penalty to some extent is made by the Tribunal by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereof, gave an option to the respondents in terms of the provisions of Section 125 of the Act, an opportunity to redeem the goods by making the payment of the redemption fine and also penalty. We have gone through the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs. The Commissioner has given strong and cogent reasons for arriving at the findings. 20. On appeal being filed before the Tribunal at the instance of the respondents, the Tribunal has interfered with the aforesaid orders passed by the Commissioner only on the ground that in other cases, redemption fine has been reduced to 20% and the penalty has been reduced to 5% and following that order passed by the Tribunal in some other cases, an order was passed by the Tribunal in the present case also for reducing both the redemption fine as also the penalty to 20% and 5% respectively. We find that the said order passed by the Tribunal is arbitrary and whimsical, for no reasons have been recorded specifically as to why in these particular cases it should be reduced to 20% and 5% respectively. It has been held by this Court that there cannot be any universal rule of reducing the redemption fine and penalty to 20% and 5% and deter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
