Binding precedent in customs penalty disputes led to vacatur of penalties and rejection of a larger Bench reference

The Court declined to refer the matter to a larger Bench and treated the earlier majority decision on the same legal question as binding. Applying that precedent, it held that the penalties imposed under Section 167(8), including the related personal penalties tied to the shipping bills, could not stand and were vacated. The appeal concerning the penalty under Section 167(37)(c) was not pressed, and the penalty under Section 167(3) did not survive. The decision reinforces adherence to prior majority rulings when the same point arises again.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act was liable to be vacated in view of the earlier decision of the Court, and whether the appeal survived in respect of the penalty under Section 167(37)(c) and the penalty under Section 167(3).

Analysis: The Court declined the request to refer the matter to a larger Bench and held that it was not justified in lightly disregarding the earlier majority decision of the Court on the same legal question. Applying that precedent, it concluded that the penalties imposed under Section 167(8), including the personal penalties connected with the shipping bills in question, could not stand. The appeal in relation to the penalty under Section 167(37)(c) was not pressed.

Conclusion: The penalties imposed under Section 167(8) were vacated. The appeal was not pursued with respect to the penalty under Section 167(37)(c). The penalty under Section 167(3) did not survive.

---