Customs Act (IV of 1969)‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑S.196‑‑‑Appeal to High Court ‑‑‑Misdeclaration with regard to quantity as well as the origin of goods‑‑‑Order of the Tribunal had not given rise to any question of law which was sine qua non for exercise of appellate jurisdiction by the High Court‑‑‑Tribunal had found it as a fact that in the given situation, the amount of fine as well as the penalty was harsh inasmuch as immediately on arrival of the consignment the importer himself made a .request for reshipment of goods to the exporter and the Tribunal was also of the view that mere non‑mentioning of imported goods in Appendix B of the Import Policy Order did not make the item as a banned item merely for the reason of its Indian origin‑‑ Tribunal having exercised a discretion vested in it under law for the reasons which found support from the record, High Court declined interference.

Zahid Farani for Appellant.

ORDER

Through this single order we intend to dispose of Customs Appeals Nos. 133, 134 and 135 of 2003.

2. These three appeals by the Department assail a consolidated order recorded by the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 3‑6‑2003.

3. A consignment of "marble slabs (Polished)" was imported by the respondents. The declared origin of goods as well as the value was found incorrect by the customs officials. After valuing the actual quantity and finding the origin of goods to be that of India, summary adjudication proceedings were held. The consignment was directed to be confiscated though the release of goods was allowed on the payment of redemption fine equivalent to 70% of the assessed value. Also a penalty of Rs.25,000 was imposed on the importers.

4. The first appellate forum Collector (Appeals) however, reduced the amount of fine to 50% of the value in lieu of confiscation and the amount of penalty to Rs.5000.

5. On further appeal by way of the impugned order learned Tribunal further reduced the volume of fine in lieu of confiscation to 30% while the penalty imposed was remitted altogether.

6. It is the case of the Revenue that misdeclaration with regard to quantity as well as the origin of goods having been admitted the learned Tribunal was not justified in allowing the impugned relief. However, we will not agree. In the first place we find that the order of Tribunal does not give rise to any question of law which is sine‑qua‑non for exercise of appellate jurisdiction by this Court under section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969. Secondly the Tribunal found it as a fact that in the given situation, the amount of fine as well as the penalty was harsh inasmuch as immediately on arrival of the consignment the importer himself made a request for reshipment of goods to the exporter at Dubai. Also the Tribunal was of the view that mere non‑mentioning of imported goods in Appendix‑B of the Import Policy Order did not make them a banned item merely for the reason of their Indian origin. Lastly we are of the view that the Tribunal has exercised a discretion vested in it under the law for the reasons which find support from the record. Therefore, we will refuse to interfere for the Department.

7. Dismissal in limine

M.B.A./C‑232/LAppeal dismissed.