Customs confiscation for foreign trade violation led to proportionate reduction of redemption fine and penalty.

Imported marble was liable to confiscation for contravention of the foreign trade regime under the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 read with the Exim Policy 1997-2002 and Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. As confiscation was not disputed, the only surviving issue was the quantum of redemption fine and penalty. Taking comparable Tribunal orders into account, the monetary burden was moderated to a proportionate level, with the fine and penalty reduced to Rs. 6 lakhs and Rs. 1.5 lakhs respectively. Confiscation remained undisturbed, and consequential relief followed from the reduced penalties.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a case of confiscation of imported marble for contravention of the foreign trade regime, the redemption fine and penalty required reduction having regard to comparable Tribunal orders.

Analysis: The goods were held liable to confiscation for import in contravention of Section 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 read with the Exim Policy 1997-2002, attracting Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The liability to confiscation was not disputed. The only surviving question concerned the quantum of redemption fine and penalty. Taking note of similar imports and prior Tribunal orders, the amounts were moderated to approximate 20% of the CIF value for fine and 5% for penalty.

Conclusion: The redemption fine and penalty were reduced to Rs. 6 lakhs and Rs. 1.5 lakhs respectively, with consequential relief.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of reduction in the monetary consequences of confiscation, while the confiscation itself remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where confiscation is not contested and comparable cases indicate a lower burden, the quantum of redemption fine and penalty may be reduced to a proportionate level.

---