Customs redemption fine must be proportionate, and section 114A penalty needs statutory duty determination and culpable conduct.

Redemption fine in customs matters must be proportionate and reflect bona fide conduct, the surrounding circumstances, and any extenuating factors; on those facts, the fine was reduced as excessive. Penalty under section 114A of the Customs Act cannot be sustained unless duty is determined in the manner contemplated by section 28 and the statutory preconditions, including culpable conduct such as wilful suppression or fraudulent mis-declaration, are established; in the absence of those elements, the penalty was set aside. The confiscation and duty-related findings were left undisturbed, but the monetary consequences were modified to grant partial relief to the importer.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the redemption fine imposed in lieu of confiscation was liable to be reduced. (ii) Whether the penalty imposed under section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the redemption fine imposed in lieu of confiscation was liable to be reduced.

Analysis: The imported capital goods were found to be second-hand and therefore not eligible under the EPCG scheme, but the record also showed that one item in the EPCG authorisation described the year of manufacture as 1992, the invoices tallied with that description, and there was no finding of manipulation or fraud in the import documents. The goods were imported for use in manufacture and not for sale, the appellant had incurred substantial detention and allied charges, and the declared value rejection was not supported by reasons in the adjudication order. In these circumstances, the fine had to reflect the bona fide conduct of the importer and the surrounding extenuating facts.

Conclusion: The redemption fine was excessive and was reduced to Rs.26,50,000/-.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed under section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable.

Analysis: Penalty under section 114A requires a duty demand determined in the manner contemplated by section 28, and the appellant's case did not involve a sustained finding of wilful suppression or fraudulent mis-declaration. The duty had been assessed and paid before clearance after rejection of the EPCG claim, and there was no determination of duty attracting section 114A on the facts found. In the absence of the statutory precondition and of proved culpable conduct, the penalty could not stand.

Conclusion: The penalty under section 114A was unsustainable and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation and duty-related findings were left undisturbed, but the monetary consequences were modified by reducing the redemption fine and deleting the penalty, resulting in only partial relief to the importer.

Ratio Decidendi: Redemption fine must be proportionate and assessed with due regard to bona fide conduct and extenuating circumstances, and penalty under section 114A cannot be imposed unless duty is determined in the statutory manner under section 28.

---