Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M Ahmadi, C.J.I., Sujata V.Manohar, J.
Collector Of Customs, Bombay
Versus
Super Fasteners, Marwana (Haryana)
Case No. : .
Date of Decision : 10/10/96
(1) TIME of payment of Rs. 300.00 is extended up to the end of this month. The counsel assures us that the payment will be made. On that assurance, we proceed with the hearing of the appeal.
(2) THE respondent imported a second-hand automatic multi-station nut- making machine under Invoice No. 1044 showing the price as 24,500 pounds. Later on, it was found that while the nut-making machine qualifies for clearance under OGL, the tapping machine did not so qualify and hence the import of the tapping machine was illegal. The appellant-Department, therefore, confiscated the tapping machine under the Customs Act, 1962 read with the relevant provisions of the ITC policy. In addition thereto, a redemption fine of Rs. 2 lakhs came to be imposed. The tribunal, while conceding that the import of the tapping machine was unauthorised and the confiscation of the machine was valid, thought that the redemption fine was very much on the higher side and reduced it to Rs. 25,000.00 only, having regard to the value of the tapping machine which was estimated to be 1200 pounds. It is on this limited question that this appeal has been filed and the Revenue desires that we interfere with the tribunals order reducing the redemption fine. We are not inclined to do so. We think that the redemption fine of Rs. 2 lakhs was on the higher side having regard to the total value of the tapping machine at the relevant date. If the tribunal in its discretion thought that the fine was exorbitant and disproportionate and decided to reduce it, we do not think that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, any exception can be taken to that course of action. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal with no order as to costs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
