Court rules petitioner not liable for redemption fine as duty paid exceeded market price; purchaser held responsible.

The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding them not liable to pay the redemption fine. The petitioner's argument that the purchaser should be liable for the redemption fine after selling the goods was rejected. The Court found that as the duty paid exceeded the market price of the goods, the redemption fine could not be imposed according to the Customs Act. Consequently, the petitioner was absolved of the liability to pay the redemption fine.

---

---

Issues:
1. Liability of the petitioner to pay redemption fine after selling the goods.
2. Imposition of redemption fine when duty paid was more than the market price.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Liability of the petitioner to pay redemption fine after selling the goods
The petitioner imported goods classified as Acrylic Fibre and faced a demand of duty under Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner confirmed the duty demand with interest and directed confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Act. As the goods were not available for confiscation, redemption fine was imposed along with a penalty. The Tribunal upheld the redemption fine, leading the petitioner to challenge it. The petitioner argued that since the goods were sold, they were no longer the owner, and only the purchaser, Ravi Jagota, should be liable for the redemption fine. The petitioner contended that the market price was lower than the duty paid, and Ravi Jagota, as the purchaser, was the owner of the goods under Section 125 of the Act. However, the Department argued that ownership at the time of import was crucial, and as the petitioner was the owner then, they remained liable. The Court found that as no claim was made before the Tribunal regarding ownership at the time of import, the petitioner was held liable for the redemption fine.

Issue 2: Imposition of redemption fine when duty paid was more than the market price
The Court noted that there was no finding in the Tribunal's order regarding the market price of the goods. The value of the goods was Rs. 19,58,414, while the duty paid was Rs. 35,46,456. There was no indication that the market price exceeded the duty paid. According to the proviso to Section 125 of the Act, the redemption fine should not exceed the difference between the market price and the duty paid. Since this condition was not met, the redemption fine could not be imposed. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner on this issue, absolving them from the liability to pay the redemption fine.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the petition in favor of the petitioner, ruling that they were not liable to pay the redemption fine due to the sale of goods and the duty paid exceeding the market price.

---