Appeal reduces fine on air-compressor importer, citing precedent judgment.

The appeal was lodged against the order of the Collector (Appeals) confirming the confiscation of imported air-compressors by the appellant under Section 111 of the Act. The appellant sought a reduction in the fine imposed, citing a previous Supreme Court judgment as the basis for their belief in the importability of the goods. The Tribunal, considering past decisions and exercising discretion, reduced the fine imposed on the appellant to Rs. 80,000 in each case, aligning with precedents set by earlier rulings.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal against order of Collector (Appeals) confirming confiscation of imported air-compressors under Section 111 of the Act.
2. Contention for reduction of fine imposed on the appellant.
3. Interpretation of Supreme Court judgments regarding importability of goods.
4. Exercise of discretion in determining redemption fine.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was lodged against the order of the Collector (Appeals) affirming the confiscation of air-compressors imported by the appellant under Clause (d) of Section 111 of the Act. The Collector allowed redemption of the goods upon payment of fines amounting to Rs. 1.75 lakh and Rs. 1.80 lakh in separate appeals.

2. The appellant's Counsel acknowledged the unauthorized importation but argued for a reduction in the fine imposed. The appellant had initiated the import process based on a firm commitment made on 20-2-1986, supported by a letter of credit. The appellant believed the goods were importable due to a previous Supreme Court judgment. However, subsequent clarifications by the Supreme Court altered this understanding. Previous decisions by other Benches of the Tribunal had reduced fines in similar cases, including the appellant's own case in appeal 767/88.

3. The departmental representative contended that the Supreme Court's judgment in Raj Parkash Chemicals Ltd. & Another v. Union of India indicated that license holders were cautioned about the importability of restricted items. The representative argued that a different interpretation could have been adopted after October 19, 1985. Therefore, the department saw no justification for leniency in this case.

4. While acknowledging the discretionary nature of determining redemption fines, it was emphasized that such discretion must be exercised fairly and reasonably. Given that previous Tribunal Benches had reduced fines after considering the Supreme Court's judgment, it was deemed inappropriate to treat the appellant differently from others in a similar position. Therefore, following the precedent set by earlier decisions, the fine imposed on the appellant was reduced to Rs. 80,000 in each case.

---