Redemption fine and penalty under customs law remain discretionary where no arbitrariness or miscarriage of justice is shown.

Fixation of redemption fine and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962 is discretionary, subject only to the statutory maximum limits, and interference is justified only if the order is arbitrary or causes miscarriage of justice. On the facts, the Tribunal had relied on earlier decisions and there was no market enquiry to displace its assessment, so the refusal to enhance the fine and penalty was not found to be defective. The Court also held that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's order, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in refusing enhancement of redemption fine and penalty in respect of confiscated imported goods and whether any substantial question of law arose for interference.

Analysis: The appeals concerned only the quantum of redemption fine and penalty. The Tribunal had relied on earlier decisions to hold that no case was made out for enhancement. The Court noted that fixation of redemption fine and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962 is discretionary, that the statutory provisions only prescribe the maximum limits, and that interference is warranted only where the appellate order is arbitrary or results in miscarriage of justice. In the absence of any market enquiry and on the materials considered by the Tribunal, the reduction of fine and penalty could not be faulted. The Court also held that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's order.

Conclusion: The refusal to enhance redemption fine and penalty was upheld and the challenge by the Revenue failed.

---