Redemption fine refund does not create a right to interest, bank commission reimbursement, or restitution absent statutory authority.

A reduction in customs redemption fine did not, by itself, create any right to interest, bank commission reimbursement, or other compensatory relief on amounts already paid or secured. The appellate forum was said to lack jurisdiction to review its own order or to grant substantive compensation under the guise of consequential relief. Restitution under Section 144 CPC was held inapplicable because the confiscation order had not been set aside and the fine had been paid voluntarily to obtain release of the goods, not under a later-reversed compulsory order. The claim was also rejected as resembling neither compensation for compulsory acquisition nor refund of an illegal levy, and no provision in the Customs Act, 1962 authorised such interest or reimbursement.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after reduction of redemption fine in customs confiscation proceedings, the appellant was entitled to interest on the excess fine paid in cash, commission paid to the bank on the excess guarantee amount, or any other restitutionary or compensatory relief in the appellate forum.

Analysis: The claim for interest was treated as neither rectification nor clarification of the earlier order, and the appellate forum was held to have no jurisdiction to review its own order or to award substantive compensation under the guise of consequential relief. Restitution under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was held inapplicable because the confiscation order had not been set aside, the redemption fine was paid voluntarily to secure release of goods, and the payment was not made under compulsion of an order that was later reversed. The Court further held that the claim could not be assimilated to compensation arising from compulsory acquisition, nor to refund of an illegal levy, and that there was no statutory basis in the Customs Act, 1962 for interest on refund of a reduced redemption fine or on bank commission. The analogy of bank guarantee arrangements and interest on tax refunds was rejected.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to interest, commission, restitution, or compensatory relief in respect of the excess redemption fine or the bank guarantee amount.

---