Redemption fine and penalty for incomplete photocopier imports upheld where discretion was based on relevant facts and no law question arose.

Import of second-hand incomplete photocopying machines was treated as contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy and liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, with redemption allowed on fine and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced both amounts after finding first-time import, no misdeclaration, and no material showing intent to evade duty; the Tribunal upheld that discretionary reduction as not perverse. The High Court held that the authorities had acted on relevant facts, that a bona fide mistake could not be excluded because the machines were incomplete, and that no substantial question of law arose. The reduction in redemption fine and penalty was therefore sustained and the appeals failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal were justified in upholding the reduced redemption fine and penalty imposed in respect of import of second-hand incomplete photocopying machines, and whether any substantial question of law arose.

Analysis: The imported goods were found to possess the essential character of photocopier machines and their import was treated as contrary to para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-09. Confiscation had been ordered under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option of redemption under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the redemption fine and penalty after recording that the goods had been imported for the first time, there was no misdeclaration, and there was no material to show an intention to evade duty. The Tribunal upheld that exercise of discretion as not perverse. The Court found that the discretion had been exercised on relevant facts and that the possibility of a bona fide mistake could not be excluded, since the machines were incomplete and some missing parts were minor but necessary for operation.

Conclusion: The reduction in redemption fine and penalty was upheld, and no substantial question of law arose; the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were dismissed as lacking merit, and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), as affirmed by the Tribunal, was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Appellate interference is unwarranted where the lower appellate authority exercises discretion on relevant facts in a non-perverse manner, especially when no substantial question of law is shown to arise.

---