IMPORTANT POINT
Reference to High Court can be made only on a question of law.

JUDGMENT

D.K. Jain, J. —

1. Delay in SLP (C) No. 11177 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 11180 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 11181 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 11182 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 12641 of 2006 and SLP (C) No. 14991 of 2006 is condoned and Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this batch of appeals is to the orders passed by the High Court of Bombay dated 3rd July, 2003 in Customs Application Nos. 27-29, 31, 34, 36 of 2002 and 2-10 of 2003; 24 th March, 2005 in Customs Application Nos.17-18 of 2003; 30th March, 2005 in Customs Application Nos.26 and 29 of 2003; 16th March, 2005 in Customs Application Nos. 11-14 of 2003; 6 th April, 2005 in Customs Application Nos. 31-33 and 35 of 2003 and 23rd March, 2005 in Customs Application Nos. 15-16 of 2003. By the impugned orders, the High Court has rejected the applications filed by the Revenue under Section 130A of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short “the Act”) on the ground that no question of law arose from the orders of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”).

3. As common questions of law and facts are involved in all the appeals, these are being disposed of by this common judgment. However, to appreciate the controversy involved, a brief reference to the facts in C.A. Nos.4371-4383 of 2004, as being illustrative, would suffice. The respondents-importers were engaged in the business of import of rough marble blocks, classifiable under sub-heading 2515.12 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, from various countries such as Italy, Iran, Turkey, Indonesia, Spain, China, Greece etc. in the year 1999. These goods were covered by Exim Code No. 25151200 of ITC [HS] Classification of Export & Import Items 1997-2002, and required a specific licence for importation under the EXIM Policy-1997-2002. Admittedly, when the imports were made all the respondents, in the instant cases, did not possess the licence as required under the EXIM Policy. Additionally, in some cases, the quantity and price of the imported goods was mis-declared in the bills of entry.

4. The goods imported by the respondents were confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Act. However, the importers were given an option to redeem the confiscated goods on payment of redemption fine, which was fixed, adopting the margin of profit as the basis, under Section 125 of the Act; and penalty levied under Section 112(a) of the Act.

5. Aggrieved, the importers approached the Tribunal in appeal. The Tribunal, in each case, partly allowed the appeal, observing that the facts in each case were similar to those in M/s. Stonemann Marble Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Order No. CI/424-25/WZB/2002 dated 30th January, 2002), and therefore, the redemption fine and penalty was reduced to 20% and 5% of the CIF value respectively.

6. Being aggrieved, the Revenue preferred an application under Section 130A of the Act, stating that the following questions of law arose out of the orders of the Tribunal:

“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law reducing the redemption fine imposed under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 from Rs.1.01 Crores to Rs. 25,00,000/- and penalty imposed u/s. 112[a] from Rs. 29,40,000/- to Rs. 7,50,000/- in Appeal No. C/1030/01-Mum and in reducing the redemption fine from Rs. 42,84,000/- to Rs. 7,00,000/- and penalty from Rs. 4,00,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/- in Appeal No. C/1042/201-Mum by following its earlier orders in the case of Stonemann Marble Industries.

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in intervening with the redemption fines of Rs. 1.01 crores and Rs. 42,84,000/- imposed under Section 125 by the Commissioner of Customs, Jawahar Customs House, Nhava Sheva and reducing it to Rs. 25,00,000/- and Rs. 7,00,000/- and with penalties of Rs. 29,40,000/- & Rs. 4,00,000/- imposed under Section 112[a] by the Commissioner of Customs, Jawahar Customs House, Nhava Sheva & reducing them to Rs. 7,50,000/- and Rs. 2,00