9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant and Mr. Shyam Mehta, the learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. The following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal : (a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CESTAT was justified in reducing the redemption fine imposed under Section 111(d), (f) and (n) of the Customs Act, 1962 to 30% of the CIF value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of law? And if not, whether it was binding on the CESTAT, Mumbai? 3. The learned senior Counsel and the counsel appearing for the parties agreed that appeal may be disposed of at this stage itself. We find the prayer reasonable and, accordingly, decide the appeal here and now. 4. We considered the submissions of the learned senior counsel and the counsel. We also considered the order dated 18th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty to 30% and 5% of the CIF value respectively. It needs no emphasis that upon the order of confiscation of the goods having been passed under Section 111(d), (f) and (n) of the Customs Act, 1962, if an option is given to redeem confiscated goods, the question of redemption fine and penalty shall depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Isolated or repeated conduct of the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The aforesaid questions stand answered accordingly. 5. The learned senior counsel and the Counsel for the parties agreed that the matter may be remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 6. We, accordingly, quash and set aside the order dated 18th July, 2005 passed by the Tribunal. Appeal Nos. C-330/97 and C-9/98 are restored to the file of Customs, Excise an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
