Bona fide purchaser protection against confiscation where no knowledge of duty evasion by the manufacturer is shown

Confiscation of goods bought under excise invoices could not be sustained against a bona fide purchaser where there was no allegation or evidence that the buyer knew the manufacturer had evaded duty. Rule 173Q(1)(a) was treated as directed at the manufacturer's conduct, not as a continuing liability attaching to an independent buyer after ownership had passed. On those facts, the legal basis for confiscation was absent, and the confiscation was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of goods purchased against excise invoices could be sustained against a bona fide buyer in the absence of evidence that the buyer knew of the manufacturer's duty evasion.

Analysis: The confiscation power under Rule 173Q(1)(a) was treated as one arising from the manufacturer's conduct and not as a continuing liability attaching to an independent buyer after the goods had passed into the buyer's ownership. Since there was no allegation or evidence showing the appellant's knowledge of the non-duty-paid character of the goods, the basis for confiscation was absent. The cited precedent was applied to hold that, after lawful change of ownership, confiscation could not be sustained against the buyer on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: Confiscation of the goods was not justified and was set aside.

---