ORDER : R.M. Sahai, J. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal directed against the order of Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, is whether Pressure Sodium Vapour Lamps imported by the appellant from Hong Kong were components within the meaning of Appendix 10 of AM-84/Policy Book Part III of the OGL. Further, whether the levy of penalty on the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the case was justified and whether the Tribunal and the Collector committed any error of law in directing that the appellant was entitled to redeem the goods on payment of fine. 2. The appellant imported 2000 pieces of 250 watts High Pressure Sodium Vapour Lamps from Hong Kong. The price declared was 9 dollars, i.e., Rs 90 per piece. The appellant sought clearance of the goods under OGL in terms of Appendix 10 of AM-84/Policy Book Part III of List 8 reads as under : 'All other items permitted under OGL in terms of the Import Policy in force, other than those covered by Appendices I and II above.' It is not disputed that any item which was not covered by a specific or general description in any of the Appendices from I to IX, XV and Parts I and II of List 8 of Appendix 10 could be imported by the actual user and others for stock and sale. It was claimed by the appellant that the lamps imported by it were not covered under any of the appendices mentioned and it could, therefore, claim clearance of its items under the entry in the OGL which reads: 'raw materials, components and consumables allowed in open general licence'. It was not disputed either before the Tribunal or before this Court that if the lamps are either raw material or components or consumables then the Department was not entitled to levy any duty on it. An attempt by the appellant before the Tribunal was made to claim benefit of this entry either because the goods were consumables or components. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, did not press that the item was consumable. His submission even in respect of components was half-hearted and after advancing it for some time he gave it up realising that it was not possible to assail the finding recorded by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, did not press that the item was consumable. His submission even in respect of components was half-hearted and after advancing it for some time he gave it up realising that it was not possible to assail the finding recorded by the Tribunal. But he vehemently argued that the order of the Tribunal in respect of penalty and fine was not well founded. 3. One of the disputes before the Tribunal was about the valuation of the Sodium Vapour Lamps. In the show-cause notice the Department had determined the price of the lamp at Rs 158 per piece. The Tribunal did not accept the determination as it was not supported by any material on record and accepted the claim of the appellant that the price per piece was Rs 90 only. The Tribunal further found that there was no under-invoicing, but the appellant was held liable for payment of fine as it had contravened Section 111(d) of the Customs Act read with Section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. Since the appellant was found to have imported the lamp without valid licence, it was found liable to pay penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The imposition of penalty for violation of Section 111(d) appears to be automatic in the sense that once a person has been found to have contravened the provisions of the Customs Act, the liability to pay penalty arises under the Customs Act. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, that the Tribunal committed an error of law in imposing the penalty cannot be accepted, but it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the Department that no minimum has been fixed in the Customs Act. In other words, it was in the discretion of the Tribunal to determine the penalty on the facts and circumstances of the case. Since the Tribunal found that the price quoted by the appellant was correct and the determination by the Collector was not supported by any material nor the appellant was found guilty of any under-invoicing, the Tribunal should have opted for nominal penalty. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the interest of justice will be served if the penalty is reduced to Rs. 5000 only. 4. The Collector had imposed a fine of Rs. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the interest of justice will be served if the penalty is reduced to Rs. 5000 only. 4. The Collector had imposed a fine of Rs. 1,50,000 on the valuation of the lamps worked out at Rs. 150 per piece. Once this valuation was not accepted by the Tribunal and the claim that the value of each lamp was Rs. 90 only, then the valuation of total import stood reduced to approximately Rs. 1,80,000 and consequently the Tribunal should have reduced proportionately the amount of fine to Rs. 85,000 only. 5. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. The amount of fine is reduced to Rs. 85,000 and that of penalty to Rs. 5000. 6. The parties shall bear their own costs. Appeal allowed in part.