the commissioner of customs Vs m/s la grande project Ltd.

(a)	Whether		on	the facts	and	circumstances
	of	the	case	and in law	the	CESTAT was
	justified		in	reducing	the	redemption
	fine	i	mposed	under Sec	tion	111(d), (f)
	and	(n)	of	the Customs	Act,	1962 to 30%
	of	the	CIF	value of	the	goods without
	giving Order		reason No.	s and C-II/2268-7/WZB/2	ignoring 002	its earlier dated
	10.1.2002,		but	relying	upon	the Order
	No.398/05 Delhi?	-C, date	d 2.5.2005	, CESTAT, New
(b)	Whether		on	the facts	and	circumstances

¶18

2

¶19

		of	the case and in	law	the Tribu	nal was
		justified imposed value	in restricting upon the importer of the goods	to witho	the 5% of ut giving	penalty CIF any
		reasons	and ignoring	its	earlier	Order
		No.C-II/2268 but relying u dated 2.5.200	-7/WZB/2002 pon the Order No.398/05-C, 5, CESTAT New Delhi?	dated		10.1.2002,
	(c)	Whether	the order		No.398/05-C	dated
		2.5.2005	passed by	CESTAT	New	Delhi
		settles	any question of	law?	An	d if
		not, whether CESTAT, M	it was binding on the umbai?
3.	The	learned	senior counsel and	the	counsel	appearing
for	the parties	agreed	that appeal may	be	disposed	of at

¶20

this stage itself. We find the prayer reasonable and, accordingly, decide the appeal here and now.

¶21

4.	We	con	sidered th	e submissions of th	e learned	senior
counsel	and	the	counsel.	We also consider	ed the	order
dated	18th	July,	2005	passed by the Cust	oms, Excise	and
Service	Tax		Appellate	Tribunal, West Zonal	Bench	(for
short,	‘the	Tribun	al’).	In our view, the	order of	the
Tribunal	is	unsusta	inable s	ince it does not	disclose	any
reason	much		less jus	tifiable reason for	reducing	the
redemption	fine		to 30%	and penalty to 5%	of the	CIF
value	of the	goods	. It	is true that the	order dated	2nd
May,	2005	passed	by t	he Tribunal in Ap	peal No.C-2	76/97-C
was	not	chall	enged by	the Department	wherein red	emption
fine	and pen	alty	were redu	ced to 30% and 5%	of the	CIF
value	of	the	goods	respectively but the	said	order,
surely,	could	not	have	been relied upon as	a p	recedent

¶22

3

¶23

binding	in the	facts	and circumsta	nces of the	present
case as	the said	order	did not dis	close any reason	for
reduction	in the	redempti	on fine and	the penalty to	30%
and 5%	of the	CIF	value respectively	. It needs	no
emphasis	that upon		the order of	confiscation of	the
goods h	aving been	passed	under Secti	on 111(d), (f)	and
(n) of	the Customs	Act,	1962, if an	option is given	to
redeem	confiscated	good	s, the questio	n of re	demption
fine and	penalty	shall	depend o	n the facts	and
circumstances	of ea	ch	case.	Isolated or	repeated
conduct	of the	petitio	ner is an	important aspect	that
needs to	be	taken	into consideratio	n along with	all
other	relevant	factor	s justifyin	g redemption	of
confiscated	goods	on	payment of	particular fine	and
penalty.	No har	d and	fast rule can	be applied.	Each
case has	to be	seen,	examined and	considered on its	own
facts.	Each case	of	redemption fine	and imposition	of
penalty, in	our	opinion	, has	to be indep	endently
examined;	other	cases	cannot be	binding as a p	recedent
but at	best give	some	guidance to	enable the	authority
to reach	the con	clusion	as to on	what payment of	fine
and penalty,	redemption	of	the confisc	ated goods must	be
permitted.	In o	ur co	nsidered view,	the order passed	by
the Tri	bunal interf	ering	with the	order of	the
Commissioner	does	not	meet the test	of reason	and,

¶24

therefore, deserves to be set aside. The aforesaid

¶25

questions stand answered accordingly.

¶26

4

¶27

5.	The	learned	senior	counsel and	the	counsel for	the
parties	agreed	that	the	matter may	be	remitted back	to
the Tribunal	for fresh co	nsideration	in accor	dance with
law.
6.	We, a	ccordingly,	qu	ash and set	asid	e the order	dated
18th	July,	2005	passed	by the Tri	bunal.	Appeal	Nos.
C-330/97	and	C-9/98	are	restored to	the	file of	Customs,
Excise	and	Ser	vice	Tax Appellate	Tribu	nal, West	Zonal
Bench,	Mumbai.		The	parties are	dir	ected to	appear
before	the	Tribunal	on	17th April,	2006.	The	Tribunal
is	expected	to	dec	ide the	afore	said two	appeals
expeditiously		and,	i	f convenie	nt	and	possible,

¶28

preferably within three months from the date of the

appearance.

. No costs.

(R.M. LODHA,J.)

(J.P. DEVADHAR,J.)

the commissioner of customs v. m/s la grande project Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

the commissioner of customs v. m/s la grande project Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Navnitlal and Co. Vs Dy Commissioner of Income-Tax,Spl RG.-30

tjhe commissioner of customs (prev) mumbai Vs m/s bagwe udyog Ltd.

Superb Minerals Private Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer RANGE-2(1), Nashik and Ors.

La Grande Projects Ltd. Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

La Grande Projects Ltd. Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Extrusion Pricesses Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Income-Tx,City-Ix,Mum