Redemption fine and penalty cannot be reduced after confiscation is upheld without reasons or mitigating circumstances.

Where confiscation is upheld for breach of import licensing conditions, any further reduction of redemption fine or penalty must rest on recorded reasons and discernible mitigating circumstances such as hardship, good faith, or other exceptional features. An unexplained reduction, especially where the adjudicating authority's figures bear a rational relation to the value of the goods and duty involved, is arbitrary and legally unsustainable. The Delhi High Court therefore restored the adjudicating authority's order and held the reduction of redemption fine and penalty to be an error of law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal could reduce the redemption fine and penalty while upholding confiscation without recording reasons or identifying exceptional circumstances.

Analysis: The confiscation was sustained on one surviving violation of the import licensing conditions, and the importer did not dispute that finding. The further reduction of redemption fine and penalty by the Tribunal, however, was unsupported by any explanation. Where the amounts fixed by the adjudicating authority bear a rational relation to the value of the goods and duty involved, a further reduction can be made only on some discernible basis, such as hardship, good faith, or other exceptional features. In the absence of any material showing such considerations, the exercise of discretion becomes arbitrary.

Conclusion: The reduction of redemption fine and penalty was held to be legally unsustainable, and the issue was decided in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the adjudicating authority's order was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A reduction in redemption fine or penalty, after confiscation is upheld, must be supported by reasons and relevant mitigating circumstances; an unexplained reduction is an error of law.

---