CUSAP.No.4 of 2011 (O&M) #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CUSAP.No.4 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Order: 15.9.2011 Commissioner Custom (Preventive) Custom House, Amritsar .....Appellant Vs. M/s BE Office Automation Pvt Ltd .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. H.P.S Ghuman, Advocate for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) C.M.No.18097-CII of 2011 In the instant application filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter to be referred as “Act”), the appellant has prayed for condonation of 346 days delay in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Delay of 346 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M.No.18098-CII of 2011 In the instant application filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter to be referred as “Act”), appellant has prayed for condonation of 768 days delay in re-filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Delay of 768 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. CUSAP.No.4 of 2011 (O&M) #2# CUSAP No.4 of 2011 Revenue is in appeal under Section 130 of 1962 Act against the order dated 1.6.2007 (P.2) passed by the Custom, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short “the Tribunal”) Respondent herein submitted the bills of entry for clearance of 'Reconditioned Incomplete Copier Incorporating Optical Systems' (for short “the goods”). The respondent failed to show any licence issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade at the time of Import and therefore, such goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111 (d) of 1962 Act. The Adjudicating Authority found that the goods were liable for confiscation and the respondent was also liable to penal action under Section 112 of the Act. The Adjudicating Authority gave option to the respondent to redeem the goods on payment of fine and personal penalty, which was availed by the respondent. Aggrieved against the said order, the respondent filed an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 23.10.2006 upheld the charging of duty on the assessed value and confiscation of the goods but reduced redemption fine and personal penalty inter alia on the ground that the respondent has not mis-declared the description of goods and that the order of the Adjudicating Authority does not disclose mens rea of high degree. Such order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) has been affirmed by the Tribunal. Still aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment of this Court reported as Jaswant Traders v. Commissioner of Customs CUSAP.No.4 of 2011 (O&M) #3# 2009(235) E.L.T 33 (P&H) to contend that the mens rea was not required or contemplated as the import of the goods was in violation of the Import Policy. It is contended that the redemption fine and personal penalty could not have been reduced by the Commissioner. We do not find that the aforesaid judgment is, in any way, helpful to the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant. It has been held in the cited judgment that for confiscation, mens rea is not necessary. It has been held that the quantum of penalty is within the discretion of the authorities. In the present case, the Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the confiscation but reduced the redemption fine and personal penalty. In the present case, the order of confiscation has been maintained. Section 125 of the Act provides that the Officer adjudicating if thinks fit, in the case of any goods, in the facts of each case, shall, give an option to the owner of the goods to pay in lieu of confiscation such fine, which shall not exceed the market price of the goods confiscated. Section 125 of the Act contemplates the maximum amount of redemption fine and not the minimum. Therefore, taking into account the facts of the case, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly exercised its jurisdiction while reducing redemption fine and personal penalty. The same cannot be said to be illegal or unwarranted raising any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Dismissed. ( HEMANT GUPTA ) JUDGE September 15, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE