IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CUSTOMS APPLICATION NO. 9 OF 2004 Commissioner of Customs, (Export Promotion), Mumbai. ... Applicant. V/s. Shri Subhash Gupta. ... Respondent. P.S.Jetly for the applicant. Anil Balani for the respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND K.K.TATED, JJ. DATED : 25 th January 2010. P.C. : Heard learned counsel for the rival parties. Perused application. 2. By this application, the Revenue is seeking under section 130A of the Customs Act, substituted by section substituted by section 112 of the Finance Act, 1999 (Act No.27 of 1999) arising out of the order dated 9 th May, 2003 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi ( Tribunal for short) in Appeal No.C/546-548/2002-NB-(D) contending that the Tribunal could not have reduced personal penalty from 25 lakh to 5 lakh without recording reasons. 3. In the submission of Mr.Jetly, learned counsel for the petitioner- Revenue, no reasons are to be found in the order of the Tribunal in support of the view taken. Mr.Balani, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the order of Tribunal contains adequate reasons for reducing penalty. 4. Having heard both parties and having gone through the impugned order, it is difficult to subscribe to the argument advanced by Mr.Jetly that the impugned order does not contain any reasons. Needless to mention that the reasons recorded in the order No.A/831-832/02-NB passed in connected appeal filed by the respondent Subhash Gupta arising out of orders-in- original dated 18 th October, 2008 and 28 th September, 2001 dealt with identical contentions and the said reasons recorded therein were referred by incorporation in the impugned order since the issues and facts together with circumstances giving rise to the order-in-original dated 18 th October, 2001 and 28 th September, 2001 were similar, common and identical. 4. In the aforesaid circumstances, by no stretch of imagination the impugned order can be said to be a non-speaking order. The quantum of penalty did involve discretion. The exercise of discretion by the Tribunal in reducing the penalty cannot be faulted for the reasons recorded. No substantial question of law arises warranting direction to the Tribunal to state statement of case and make reference to this Court. 5. In the result, application is rejected with no order as to costs. (K.K.TATED, J.) (V.C.DAGA J.)