TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (10) TMI 446
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Customs in order to challenge an order of the revisional authority under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. The brief facts are that foreign currency valued at Rs. 47.29 lakhs was seized on 28 September 1994 from the First Respondent by the Customs Air Intelligence Unit at Mumbai at a point of departure to Dubai. A notice to show cause was issued and after adjudication, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs ordered confiscation of the foreign currency equivalent to Rs. 17.29 lakhs under clauses (d), (e) and (h) of Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the provisions of the FERA, 1973. A penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs was imposed on the First Respondent. 4. The First Respondent preferred an appeal to the Commissioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h of this Court by its order dated 4 August 2010 [2010 (259) E.L.T. 342 (Bom.)] set aside the entire order of the revisional authority and remanded the proceedings to the revisional authority to consider the issue relating to the release of the entire foreign currencies on payment of redemption fine on its merits. Upon remand, the revisional authority by its order dated 29 October 2010, imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 5.50 lakhs only on the balance of the confiscated foreign currency worth Rs. 27,29,678/- in lieu of confiscation under Section 125. 6. Two petitions have been filed before this Court : (i) Writ Petition 1573 of 2011 is by the Union of India through the Commissioner of Customs to challenge the order of the revisional a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut of consideration an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs. The submission which is urged is that the remaining amount of Rs. 20 lakhs should also have been subjected to a redemption fine. In this regard, Grounds (D) and (E) of the petition read as follows : "(D) The revisional authority erred in not following the directions of this Honourable Court to consider the issue relating to release of entire Foreign Currencies on payment of Redemption Fine on its own merits. Hence, the order of the revisional authority is not in consonance with the order of this Honourable Court. (E) The revisional authority while passing the order dated 29-10-2010 did not take into consideration the entire Foreign Currencies, i.e. Rs. 47,29,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is significant that the submission of the first Respondent here was that the entire order of the revisional authority should be set aside and the matter be remanded back for a fresh consideration. The Division Bench recorded that submission as follows : "Mr. Kantawalla, learned Counsel for the Petitioner raised a sole contention that the revisional authority under the impugned order failed to consider a specific contention raised by the Petitioner based on the various judgments of the Appellate Authority as well as that of the revisional authority wherein the entire confiscated currencies have been ordered to be released on payment of redemption fine as such impugned order needs to be set aside and that the matter needs to be remitted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the component of the confiscated foreign currency amounting to Rs. 27.29 lakhs. The entirety of the foreign currency stands confiscated. By the previous judgment of the Division Bench, all other findings on merits are confirmed. 12. In this view of the matter, we would have been inclined to remit back the proceedings to the revisional authority for imposing a redemption fine on the balance representing an amount equivalent to Rs. 20 lakhs. However, since the matter is of the year 1994 and in order to enable the proceedings to have finality, both Counsel appearing on behalf of the Commissioner of Customs and Counsel appearing on behalf of the Assessee joined in stating that it would be in the interests of justice that this Court shou....