Imported vehicle records and delayed suspicion were insufficient to sustain confiscation and redemption fine.

A car shown in the registration record as imported, with a customs clearance certificate inferable from that record under the motor vehicle registration scheme, could not be treated as smuggled merely because the original importer could not be traced after more than seven years. The vehicle had changed hands several times, and the department's case rested on suspicion rather than proof. On those facts, confiscation and redemption fine were not sustainable, and the appeal succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of the car and imposition of redemption fine could be sustained when the vehicle was recorded as imported, a customs clearance certificate was inferable from the registration record, and the proceedings were initiated after a long lapse of time on the basis of suspicion.

Analysis: The registration record showed the car as imported and, under the statutory scheme governing registration of motor vehicles, an imported vehicle requires production of a customs clearance certificate. On that basis, the original importation could be inferred. The fact that the original importer could not be traced after more than seven years did not by itself establish that the car was smuggled. The vehicle had changed hands several times, and the department's case rested only on suspicion. In these circumstances, confiscation could not be maintained.

Conclusion: The confiscation and redemption fine were not sustainable and the appeal succeeded.

---