Court rejects review proposal for confiscated gold biscuits redemption fine, emphasizes judicial discretion over administrative instructions.

The review proposal seeking to overturn the release of confiscated gold biscuits on a redemption fine was rejected. The revisionary authority reduced the fine, citing the passenger's eligibility to bring in gold and the disproportionate nature of absolute confiscation for non-declaration. The judgment emphasized judicial discretion over administrative instructions in quasi-judicial functions, protecting appellate bodies from binding directives. The decision in a previous case established the authority's discretion in granting redemption under the Customs Act. The review was dismissed as unnecessary due to the merger of the orders, affirming the reduced redemption fine.

---

---

Issues:
1. Review of order-in-appeal regarding release of confiscated gold biscuits on redemption fine.
2. Interpretation of Ministry's instructions on absolute confiscation of gold for non-declaration.
3. Judicial discretion vs. administrative instructions in quasi-judicial functions.
4. Binding effect of revisionary authority's decision on appellate bodies.
5. Rejection of review proposal based on merger of order-in-appeal with order-in-revision.

Analysis:
1. The Collector of Customs sought a review of the order-in-appeal that released 42 gold biscuits on a redemption fine, which were earlier confiscated due to non-declaration by the passenger. The government reduced the fine on revision application, considering the passenger's eligibility to bring in gold.

2. Ministry's instructions on absolute confiscation for non-declaration were cited, but the revisionary authority had previously held in Kamlesh Kumar's case that the option of redemption could be given at the discretion of the adjudicating/appellate authority under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. The revisionary authority found absolute confiscation disproportionate to the offense, which could be rectified by paying duty and fines.

3. The judgment emphasized that administrative instructions are for guidance and do not bind officers in quasi-judicial functions. Judicial discretion of appellate bodies, including the Collector (Appeals) and revisionary jurisdiction of the Central Government, is protected from such instructions under Section 151A of the Customs Act.

4. The decision in Kamlesh Kumar's case, which allowed redemption at the discretion of the adjudicating/appellate authority, was binding on Collectors (Appeal) unless challenged or stayed. Collectors must independently assess whether redemption under Section 125 should be granted, especially for passengers eligible to bring in gold.

5. The review proposal was rejected because the impugned order-in-appeal had merged with the order-in-revision, making the review unnecessary. The judgment concluded by rejecting the proposal based on the merger of the two orders, thereby upholding the decision to reduce the redemption fine for the confiscated gold biscuits.

---