Confiscation of imported marble blocks upheld, but redemption fine and penalty were reduced on parity and first-time violation grounds.

Imported rough marble blocks were held liable to confiscation for want of an import licence, but the quantum of redemption fine and penalty had to be fixed on the facts rather than by mechanically following later or materially different cases. As the import was treated as a first-time violation, with no proof of repeated or deliberate contravention, and contemporaneous Mumbai imports had been dealt with on a lower basis, parity and legitimate expectation supported reduction. The assumptions on market price and intended end use were not accepted as a safe basis for the higher quantum, so the fine and penalty were reduced.

---

---

Issues: Whether the redemption fine and penalty imposed on confiscation of imported rough marble blocks were liable to be reduced in view of contemporaneous import practice, absence of repeat violation, and the applicable market conditions.

Analysis: The imported goods were liable to confiscation for want of import licence, and valuation was fixed under the Customs Valuation Rules. However, the quantum of fine and penalty had to be assessed on the facts of the case and not by mechanically applying figures from later or materially different cases. The import was treated as a first-time violation, with no material showing repeated offending or deliberate persistence in contravention. The Tribunal also accepted that contemporaneous imports at Mumbai during the relevant period had been dealt with on a lower basis, and that equal treatment, consistent past practice, and legitimate expectation supported parity. The assumptions used in the adjudication order regarding market price and intended end use were not accepted as a safe basis to sustain the higher quantum.

Conclusion: The confiscation was upheld, but the redemption fine and penalty were reduced to 20% and 5% respectively of the CIF value, in favour of the assessee.

---