Dhillon Enterprises vs Commissioner of Customs

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee u/s 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, "the Act") against order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 17.9.2009, claiming following substantial questions of law:

a)Whether the Ld. Respondent erred in law in imposing a heavy Redemption Fine ignoring the fact that there was no undue gain to the Appellant in view of the provisions of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962?

b) Whether the Learned Respondent was justified in not considering the Chartered Certificate and the actual losses incurred by the Appellant for the purpose of imposition of Redemption Fine in view of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962?

c) Whether the Learned Respondent has acted against the principle of judicial uniformity and continuity by ignoring the various judicial pronouncements wherein redemption fine has been fixed to 10% and Penalty to 5% of the value of the goods?

d) Whether the act and omissions of Respondents amount to mis-use of power and abuse of process of law?

The Appellant imported goods and sought clearance thereof under the provisions of the Act. It was found that the Assessee had wrongly declared lesser value of goods and the import was against the import policy. Accordingly, the goods were held to be liable for confiscation u/s 111(d) of the Act. The adjudicating authority after due procedure, ordered confiscation of the goods but in exercise of power u/s 125 of the Act, gave option to the Petitioner to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 2,30,000/-. Penalty of Rs. 40,000/-was also imposed. The said order has been upheld by the appellate authority as well as the Tribunal except for reduction of quantum of fine and penalty. It was held that total waiver thereof was not called for but in the circumstances, the fine amount was reduced from Rs. 2,30,000/-to Rs. 1 lac and penalty was reduced to Rs. 20,000/-.

We have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant.

Only contention raised by learned Counsel for the Appellant is that quantum of fine and penalty are excessive and disproportionate to the gravity of offence.

We are unable to accept the submission. It is not disputed that the import by the Petitioner was illegal. Once it is so, there is no ground to interfere with the quantum of fine and penalty to be levied. Quantum of fine and penalty depends upon facts and circumstances of a case for which there cannot be any inflexible criteria. The Tribunal having determined the quantum having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in absence of perversity, it cannot be held that there is any illegality therein.

No substantial question of law arises.

The appeal is dismissed.