Tribunal reduces redemption fine under Customs Act, citing technical breach & heavy demurrage costs.

The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods but significantly reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 1 lakh, setting aside the penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The appellant's appeal against the reduction of the redemption fine and penalty was partially allowed, with the Tribunal considering the technical breach and the appellant's heavy demurrage costs. The decision was based on precedents where port restrictions led to reduced fines, granting the appellant any consequential benefits in accordance with the law.

---

---

Issues:
- Appeal against reduction of redemption fine and penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act.
- Import of goods declared as 'M.S. TMPB DEFECTIVE COILS' with violation of Foreign Trade Policy provisions.
- Confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) and imposition of redemption fine and penalty.
- Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) leading to reduction of redemption fine and penalty.
- Arguments regarding deliberate default, contumacious conduct, and technical violations.
- Rulings cited in support of reducing redemption fine and penalty.
- Adjudication by the Tribunal on the technical breach and reduction of redemption fine and penalty.

Analysis:

The appellant appealed against the reduction of the redemption fine and penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, arising from the import of goods declared as 'M.S. TMPB DEFECTIVE COILS' with violations of the Foreign Trade Policy provisions. The goods were found to be restricted items under the Policy, leading to their detention. The appellant admitted the mistake in declaring the port of destination incorrectly, seeking sympathetic consideration. The original order held the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) and imposed a redemption fine and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) partially allowed the appeal, reducing the redemption fine and penalty based on the facts and circumstances of the case, citing the ruling of the Supreme Court. The appellant contended no deliberate default and prayed for setting aside the fine and penalty, relying on precedents where port restrictions led to reduced fines. The Tribunal considered the technical breach, noting the appellant's heavy demurrage costs, and upheld the confiscation but reduced the redemption fine significantly to Rs. 1 lakh, setting aside the penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act. The appeal was allowed in part, with the appellant entitled to any consequential benefits in accordance with the law.

---