ORDER
J.H. Joglekar, Member (J)
1. This appeal form the Revenue was argued by Shri A.K. Chatterjee, the Id. SDR. The respondents were represented by Shri S.S. Shroff, Asstt. Purchase Officer.
2. The respondents purchased on high seas basis scrap from canalising agency M/s. Metal & Scrap Trading Corpon. The examination of the goods showed that part of the scrap did not conform to the specification of scrap that was eligible for import. The value of this part of the scrap was calculated at Rs. 1,23,670. The canalising agency clarified that there was always possibility of inadvertent contravention of the criterion of shapes and sizes. It was further submitted that ultimately the buyer importer would melt this scrap in arc furnace and thus the size contravention was of no material effect. The Dy. Collector confiscated the goods but permitted redemption thereof on payment of fine of Rs. 40,000. No penalty was imposed on the buyer importer but a caution was administered to the canalising agency in the adjudication order. The buyer importer then filed an appeal. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) cited the letter of the canalising agency. He observed that the quantum of scrap beyond the permissible sizes was less than 1% in the entire consignment. He observed that it was practically impossible for the importers to ensure that this size was (as per specification. He observed that although technically the goods were liable to confiscation, the fine of Rs. 40,000 was disproportionate to the fact that the value of the high seas goods was only Rs. 61,000. He reduced the fine to Rs. 5,000.
3. In this appeal from the Revenue, the point made and urged by Shri A.K. Chatterjee, SDR is that the Collector erred in holding that the value of the offending goods was Rs. 61,000 but that it was actually Rs. 1,73,030 and for this value, the fine of Rs. 40,000 could not be termed as disproportionate. On this ground, it is urged that the order of the Collector (Appeals) is to be set aside.
4. We have carefully considered this submission.
5. In the findings, the Dy. Collector has shown the value of the offending goods as Rs. 1,23,670. It would appear that in making this appeal, the Revenue have also made an arithmetical error in putting the value of the offending goods at Rs. 1,73,030.
6. The Collector in his order has brought out very clearly that the fact that the microscopic quantity of this scrap was beyond specification could not be held against the importer who was a buyer from the canalising agency. Keeping this in mind, he had deemed it proper to reduce the quantum of fine. The fine being disproportionate was only an observation and should not give rise to the presumption that in every case the fine has to be practically proportionate to the value of the offending goods. If it is so, fixation of the quantum of fine need not be left to the quasi-judicial authorities but the law itself could provide a percentage of fine. In the circumstances before him, the Collector (Appeals) was entitled to set aside the fine in its entirety. In these circumstances, the Revenue should not have any grievance as to the quantum of fine. Seeing no merits in this appeal, we dismiss the same.