Research › Search › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2026 DAILYLAW 688 (SC)

Yamal Manojbhai Jagada v. Commissioner of Customs

2026-06-12

Atul S Chandurkar, Prashant Kumar Mishra

body2026
ORDER 1. The Appeal has impugned order dated 15.05.2026 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, insofar as it has maintained redemption fine of Rs. 50 lacs imposed by the adjudicating authority, even in the event of availing option to re-export the confiscated goods. The composite penalty of Rs. 50 lacs under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 is reduced to Rs. 10 lacs and the penalty under Section 114(AA) of the Customs Act, 1962 is reduced from Rs. 2 crores to Rs. 50 lacs. 2. It is submitted that appellant has already deposited a sum of Rs. 3 crores out of which set-off has been permitted by the Tribunal in the impugned order as mentioned in para 31 thereof and its statutory application dated 20.11.2023 for compounding of alleged offences pending with the compounding authority. 3. In the impugned order, the Tribunal has directed as under in paras 30.1, 31 and 32: “30.1. Therefore, it shall be option of the Appellant to redeem the confiscated goods for home consumption on payment of duty, interest, fine and penalties, or to re-export the confiscated goods on payment of fine and penalties. 31. In the above peculiar facts, a case for reducing the penalties is made out. The redemption fine of Rs. 50 Lakhs is however maintained. A composite penalty of Rs. 50 Lakhs under Section 112(a) and 112(b) is reduced to Rs. 10 Lakhs. The penalty under Section 114AA is reduced from Rs. 2 Crores to Rs. 50 Lakhs. The Appellant would be entitled for set off of the amounts already deposited. 32. The Appeal is accordingly allowed. The Department is directed to redeem the confiscated goods within two weeks, if option of redemption on payment of redemption fine and amounts as stated above is availed by the Appellant.” 4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we are not inclined to interfere with the order under appeal as the Tribunal has assigned valid reasons as to why the appellant is not entitled for any other relief except mentioned in paras 30.1, 31 and 32, quoted above. 5. Upon hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we are not inclined to interfere with the order under appeal as the Tribunal has assigned valid reasons as to why the appellant is not entitled for any other relief except mentioned in paras 30.1, 31 and 32, quoted above. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the fine imposed on the appellant is exorbitant and the same should be reduced, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not impressed with the arguments and we do not interfere with the amount of fine imposed by the Tribunal. 6. The Department would forthwith release the confiscated goods for re-export to the appellant by allowing set-off of the amount stated to be deposited, if any, towards fine and penalties as per the impugned order of the CESTAT (paras 31 and 32 of the CESTAT). The compounding authority shall decide the compounding application preferred by the appellant on 20.11.2023 within four weeks. 7. The Civil Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. 8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.