Court upholds Tribunal decision on redemption of confiscated goods, directs independent fine determination, clarifies apportionment.

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision allowing redemption of confiscated goods upon payment of a fine, specifically focusing on jewelry excluding foreign currency. The Court affirmed the petitioner's ownership claim over the goods and directed the Commissioner of Customs to determine the fine independently, remanding the matter for this purpose. The Court concluded both writ petitions, instructing the completion of the process within six weeks and clarifying the apportionment of the fine between jewelry and currency, without issuing any costs order.

---

---

Issues:
1. Tribunal's decision on redemption of confiscated goods and imposition of fine.
2. Ownership claim over the goods by the respondent.
3. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal in directing release of goods.
4. Tribunal's authority to decide the quantum of fine.
5. Remand of the matter to the Commissioner of Customs.

Analysis:
1. The High Court addressed the department's appeal against the Tribunal's decision allowing redemption of confiscated goods upon payment of a fine. The Tribunal imposed a fine of Rs. 2.50 lakhs, considering the goods were not prohibited. The High Court focused solely on the issue of jewellery, excluding foreign currency from consideration.

2. The respondent filed a writ petition seeking redemption of goods but alleged that the authorities failed to facilitate the redemption process. The Court noted that the controversy and goods' release hinged on another related writ petition, which they heard first.

3. The revenue contended that the goods were prohibited, and the respondent lacked ownership rights. However, the Court examined the Customs Act, noting that the person in possession of seized goods is entitled to apply for redemption if the owner is unknown. As no other party claimed ownership, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to allow redemption based on the petitioner's claim of ownership.

4. While affirming the release of goods on payment of fine, the Court found fault with the Tribunal's decision on the quantum of the fine. The Court held that determining the fine amount falls under the Commissioner's jurisdiction, not the Tribunal's. Consequently, the Court remanded the matter to the Commissioner to decide the fine independently.

5. The Court concluded both writ petitions based on the above analysis. It directed the Commissioner of Customs to complete the process within six weeks and clarified the apportionment of the fine between jewellery and currency. The Court made the rule absolute without issuing any costs order.

---