Penalty and confiscation upheld for sustained duty-free clearance of excisable goods without any bona fide explanation.

Clearance of excisable goods without payment of duty over a sustained period justified penalty and confiscation where no bona fide explanation was shown for the default. The duty liability was not disputed, and the attempt to reduce the penal and confiscatory consequences on the ground of absence of intent to evade duty failed because the record disclosed repeated clearances without duty payment. The penalty and redemption fine were treated as proportionate to the gravity of the offence, and the challenge to interference with those measures was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty and confiscation of plant and machinery imposed for clearance of excisable goods without payment of duty required reduction or interference.

Analysis: The duty liability was not disputed. The only contention was that there was no intention to evade duty and, therefore, the penalty and confiscation should be reduced. The record showed clearance of machinery without payment of duty over several months, and no explanation was offered to establish a bona fide failure. In view of the duty involved and the gravity of the default, the penalty and redemption fine were held to be proportionate.

Conclusion: The challenge to the penalty and confiscation was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appellate relief sought against the penal and confiscatory consequences was denied, and the appeal failed in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Where excisable goods are cleared without payment of duty over a sustained period and no bona fide explanation is shown, the penalty and confiscation imposed for the default will not be interfered with if they are commensurate with the gravity of the offence.

---