Commissioner Of Customs vs Abdul Hameed
- CitationAppeal No.153/2005-
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
An appellate authority, exercising the discretion conferred on it by the Customs Act, may reduce a redemption fine and penalty imposed in the original order while upholding the confiscation of the goods and the valuation, where it does so by relying on earlier Tribunal decisions; such an exercise of discretion is not open to interference by the Revenue on appeal absent a valid ground showing that the precedent relied upon is inapplicable or the discretion was otherwise erroneously exercised.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.153/2005-(ADK) (TTN) dt. 11.11.2005 and OIA No.152/2005-(ADK) (TRY) dt. 10.11.2005 both passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Tirichirapalli]
Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin Appellant
Versus
1. Abdul Hameed 2. Hamza Kollappurah Respondent
Appearance:
Ms. Indira Sisupal, AC (AR) For the Appellant None For the Respondent
CORAM:
Honble Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member
Date of hearing/decision : 6.2.2015
FINAL ORDER No.40142-40143/2015
As the issue involved is common in both the appeals, they are taken up together for disposal.
2. None appeared for the respondents. Heard the Ld. AR who reiterated the grounds of appeals.
3. The short issue relates to reduction of fine and penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. The Revenue filed these appeals against the OIAs. In the case of Shri Abdul Hameed (Appeal C/10/2006), the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the redemption fine from Rs.2.50 lakhs to Rs.50,000/- and penalty from Rs.1.50 lakhs to Rs.10,000/-. In the second case also (Appeal C/11/2006), in the case of Hamza Kolappurah, the L.A.A. has reduced RF from Rs.2.50 lakhs to Rs.50,000/- and penalty from Rs.1.50 lakhs to Rs.10,000/-.
4. I find that the appellate authority has upheld the confiscation of the goods in terms of OIO. However, he has only reduced the fine and penalty by relying the Tribunal decision. On perusal of records and consideration the submissions, I do not find any merit in the Revenue's appeals for enhancing the fine and penalty to the original order. Further, the Revenue has not made out any valid grounds except stating that the case law relied by the L.A.A is not applicable to the case. Considering the fact that L.A.A has upheld the value and confiscation and reduced the fine and penalty as per the discretionary powers vested under the Act, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order in so far as reducing the fine and penalty. Accordingly, both the Revenue's appeals are dismissed. Impugned orders are upheld.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(R. PERIASAMI) TECHNICAL MEMBER
gs
2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free