TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 1391
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the gold which was being smuggled was a prohibited item and therefore redemption fine was not available. 2. We notice that the adjudicating authority had provided for absolute confiscation of the seized gold on the ground that in terms of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 ('Act' for short), the same was prohibited goods. The revisional authority however held otherwise and offered redemption fine upon which this petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was a systematic attempt at smuggling gold. Absolute confiscation of the seized gold therefore was well within the power of the adjudicating authority in terms of Section 125 of the Act. The revisional authority has committed an erro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion (1) is not paid within a period of one hundred and twenty days from the date of option given thereunder, such option shall become void, unless an appeal against such order is pending. Explanation.-For removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that in cases where an order under sub-section (1) has been passed before the date on which the Finance Bill, 2018 receives the assent of the President and no appeal is pending against such order as on that date, the option under said sub-section may be exercised within a period of one hundred and twenty days from the date on which such assent is received.] 5. Sub-section (1) of Section 125 thus provides that whenever confiscation of any goods is authorized by the Act, the officer adjudging it, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act. In such a case discretion is given to the competent authority to offer redemption fine in lieu of confiscation. The second part covers a case where importation or exportation of the goods is not prohibited. In such a case there is a mandate to offer redemption fine in lieu of confiscation as the officer thinks fit. In the present case all three authorities have provided for absolute confiscation of the goods without any facility of payment of redemption fine. This in our view was not correct. This is exactly what the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held in case of Shaik Jamal Basha Vs. Government of India reported in 1997 (91) ELT 277 (AP). The Division Bench of the High Court in the context of Section 125 of the Customs Act had held as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed by Gujarat High Court in case of Bhargavraj Rameshkumar Mehta (supra) which we have also followed in this judgment but flavours of Section 112 and 125 of the Customs Act are entirely different. Section 112 of the Act pertains to penalty for improper importation of goods. Section 125 on the other hand pertains to option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation. As noted sub-section (1) of Section 125 comes in two parts. Whenever confiscation of goods is authorized under the Act, as per sub-section (1) of Section 125 the adjudicating officer has a discretion to offer redemption fine in lieu of confiscation in case of goods importation or exportation whereof is prohibited. In all other cases there is a statutory mandate on the adjudicating offi....