Confiscation for non-payment of additional duty is not sustainable; redemption fine and penalty must stay proportionate to liability.

Goods liable only to additional duty under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 could not be subjected to confiscation or penalty merely for non-payment of that duty, so confiscation of canvas cloth and tarpaulin cloth was set aside. As to tarpaulin already liable to confiscation, the redemption fine and penalty were reduced because the duty exposure was modest and export of the goods was an undisputed mitigating factor. The note states the governing principle that confiscatory penalties must remain proportionate to the duty liability and relevant circumstances.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the redemption fine and penalty imposed in relation to confiscation of tarpaulin were liable to be reduced. (ii) Whether confiscation of canvas cloth and tarpaulin cloth could be sustained where the goods were liable only to additional duty under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957.

Issue (i): Whether the redemption fine and penalty imposed in relation to confiscation of tarpaulin were liable to be reduced.

Analysis: The liability of the tarpaulin to confiscation was not disputed, but the quantum of redemption fine and penalty required reconsideration in light of the approximate duty liability and the uncontroverted plea that the goods had been exported. The duty implication on the goods was modest, and the export factor was treated as relevant to the exercise of discretion in fixing the fine.

Conclusion: The redemption fine in lieu of confiscation of tarpaulin was reduced to Rs. 1 lakh and the penalty was reduced correspondingly.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscation of canvas cloth and tarpaulin cloth could be sustained where the goods were liable only to additional duty under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957.

Analysis: The classification dispute was proceeded with on the basis that the goods were treated as falling under the cotton fabric chapters, which attracted only additional duty and no basic excise duty. In that situation, the governing principle applied was that goods chargeable only to additional duty under the special importance enactment cannot be subjected to confiscation and no penalty can be imposed merely for non-payment of such additional duty. Applying that principle, the confiscation of both canvas cloth and tarpaulin cloth could not survive.

Conclusion: The confiscation of canvas cloth and tarpaulin cloth was set aside.

Final Conclusion: Relief was granted substantially on the principal confiscation issues, with only the confiscation of tarpaulin maintained to the limited extent of reduced redemption fine and reduced penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are liable only to additional duty under the special importance enactment, confiscation and penalty for non-payment of such duty are not sustainable; redemption fine and penalty must also be proportionate to the established duty liability and relevant mitigating circumstances.

---