9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case for it to reduce the redemption fine and penalty. It is also not clear under what circumstances and what set of facts, fine and penalty were reduced in Pandithurai’s case. Such a conduct of the Tribunal in passing an order mechanically without adverting to the facts of the said case but equating the same to the present case is highly deplorable. Equally deplorable is the conduct of the Department in not producing before us the decision of Pandithurai’s case. We do not approve of the Tribunal reducing the penalty or fine on the ratio laid down in another decision. Each case will have to be decided on its own merits and the ratio, if any, to be followed on the legal plea and not otherwise. It may be so that a particular decision coul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the discretionary power of the adjudicating authority conferred under Section 125 of the Customs Act, especially when the currencies were attempted to be exported in violation of the Foreign Exchange Management (Import Export of Currency) Regulation, 2000, which tantamount to prohibition under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was right in reducing the fine and penalty without assigning any reasons and simply following its own earlier decisions when the facts and circumstances are entirely different in each and every case? (iii) Whether the Tribunal was right in interfering with the order of the original authority which is passed under Section 125 of the Act that empowers the authority to give a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 11,00,000/- and penalty of ₹ 2,50,000/- upon the appellant. Hence this appeal. 2. The appellant seeks reduction in the quantum of both fine and penalty. In the light of the earlier order of the Tribunal in Shri S. Pandithurai v. Commissioner of Customs, Final Order No. 325/2009, dated 30-3-2009, wherein fine and penalty were reduced, we reduce the fine and penalty in this case as well. Applying the same ratio and having regard to the value of the goods in question as on date of adjudication, viz., ₹ 22 lakhs, we reduce the fine and penalty to ₹ 6,00,000 (Rupees six lakhs only) and ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) respectively. 4. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal in reducing the quantum of rede ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ability of Pandithurai s case to the facts of the present case for it to reduce the redemption fine and penalty. It is also not clear under what circumstances and what set of facts, fine and penalty were reduced in Pandithurai s case. Such a conduct of the Tribunal in passing an order mechanically without adverting to the facts of the said case but equating the same to the present case is highly deplorable. Equally deplorable is the conduct of the Department in not producing before us the decision of Pandithurai s case, viz., Final Order No. 325/2008, dated 30-3-2009 passed by the Tribunal. 9. In any event, we do not approve of the Tribunal reducing the penalty or fine on the ratio laid down in another decision. Each case will have to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
