Reasoned redemption fine under Customs law required; mechanical fixation without relevant factors was unsustainable and remanded.

While fixing redemption fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act, the adjudicating authority must exercise discretion judicially and give a reasoned order. The quantum cannot be determined mechanically; relevant factors such as market price, duty payable, and other material circumstances, including demurrage, must be considered. Here, the order merely reproduced circulars and board instructions without addressing those factors or explaining the fine. The redemption fine order was therefore unsustainable, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the redemption fine imposed in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable when the adjudicating authority did not consider relevant factors or give reasons.

Analysis: Section 125 requires the adjudicating authority to exercise discretion judicially while fixing fine in lieu of confiscation. The fine cannot be determined mechanically and relevant factors such as market price of the goods, duty payable, and other material circumstances including demurrage must be considered. The impugned order did not discuss these factors and merely reproduced portions of the circular and board instructions. Since the authority failed to give reasons for the quantum of fine, the order did not reflect a proper exercise of discretion.

Conclusion: The redemption fine order was unsustainable and the matter had to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: While fixing redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, the adjudicating authority must pass a reasoned order and assess the matter by considering all relevant factors; a mechanical determination is invalid.

---