RG-1 register non-entry did not justify confiscation or penalty where quality-control rejection and no mala fide intent were shown.

Seizure, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty for non-entry of goods in the RG-1 register were held unsustainable where the goods were found unpacked, the claim that they had been rejected at quality control was accepted, and RG-1 entry was required only after test and inspection. The record showed no shortage or excess of raw material or finished goods, no discrepancy in the register, and no evidence of mala fide intent. Minor defects noted in market enquiry did not justify confiscation. On these facts, the basis for punitive action was not made out.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seizure, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were sustainable for non-entry of the disputed goods in the RG-1 register.

Analysis: The disputed goods were found in unpacked condition and the explanation that they had been rejected at the quality control stage was accepted. The goods were required to be entered in RG-1 only after test and inspection, and the record disclosed no shortage or excess of raw material or finished goods, no discrepancy in the RG-1 register, and no evidence of mala fide intent. The market enquiry also indicated only minor defects in the goods. On these facts, the basis for confiscation and penalty was not made out.

Conclusion: The seizure, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were unsustainable and the appeal succeeded.

---