SILK LINES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the appellants, M/s. Silk Lines, with reference to the impugned order dated 17 -4 -97 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore.

(2.) SHRI Lakshminarayan, learned Advocate arguing for the appellants submitted that he is not questioning the duty liability in this case, nevertheless the imposition of penalty under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not sustainable. In this context he drew our attention to the finding portion of the impugned order wherein it was specifically mentioned that penalty was imposed under Section 125 of the Customs Act. He said that the penalty was imposed under Section 125 as it was clearly mentioned in the order, the goods were not available for confiscation and therefore imposed redemption fine and penalty as such. He also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Blue Dart Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai reported in 1999 (111) E.L.T. 102 (T) wherein it was held that - where the confiscation is held to be legally sustainable, it will not be correct to say that the option given to the person claiming the goods to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation is being penalised. In fact the option given to the claimant of the goods to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation is being penalised. In fact the option given to the claimant of the goods to redeem it on payment of fine is based on principle of equity and fairness. It will be a mistake to consider the fine payable in lieu of confiscation as fine as it is understood in criminal jurisprudence. Redemption fine is not a penalty in that sense. The word fine used in the context of giving an option to the person conceived to pay an amount in lieu of confiscation contains no penal connotation so long as the amount does not exceed the market price as per the proviso to Section 125 (1).

(3.) SMT . Radha Arun, SDR appearing for the Revenue submitted that imposition of penalty was proposed under Section 112 of the Act in the Show Cause Notice but by mistake it was mentioned in the Order under Section 125 of the Act.