Provisional release does not bar confiscation of unaccounted finished goods, and mens rea is not required under Rule 173Q(1)(b).

Provisional release of seized finished goods does not prevent confiscation at adjudication where the goods were found unaccounted and not entered in RG-1. The fact that the goods were no longer physically available after provisional release was legally irrelevant to the power to order confiscation. Rule 173Q(1)(b) could also be invoked without proof of mens rea when finished goods were not properly accounted for. The controlling principle is that non-accountal of finished goods supports confiscation, and provisional release does not extinguish that consequence.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation could be ordered in respect of unaccounted finished goods which had been provisionally released during adjudication, and whether absence of mens rea barred action under Rule 173Q(1)(b).

Analysis: The goods were found to be fully finished goods and not semi-finished goods. The earlier refusal to confiscate them on the ground of non-availability after provisional release was held to be legally untenable. Confiscation can still be ordered at the stage of adjudication even if the seized goods are no longer available because they were provisionally released. The absence of mens rea does not prevent invocation of Rule 173Q(1)(b) where the goods were not accounted for in RG-1. The authorities below had overlooked the controlling legal position.

Conclusion: Confiscation of the unaccounted finished goods was permissible notwithstanding provisional release and non-availability, and Rule 173Q(1)(b) could be invoked even without proof of mens rea.

Ratio Decidendi: Provisional release of seized goods does not bar confiscation at adjudication, and non-accountal of finished goods may attract confiscation under Rule 173Q(1)(b) even in the absence of mens rea.

---