Marginal stock variation and a plausible dip-reading error defeated confiscation and penalty for alleged molasses discrepancy.

Confiscation of molasses stock and penalty were found unwarranted where the excess stock detected was only marginal and the discrepancy was reasonably explained by foaming and possible error in dip reading. The appellate authority had accepted that factual explanation, and no material was produced to dislodge that conclusion or justify interference. On that basis, the departmental appeal was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of the molasses stock and imposition of penalty were justified when the excess stock found was marginal and supported by an explanation of foaming and possible error in dip reading.

Analysis: The excess quantity found was only a very small percentage of the recorded stock. The explanation offered for the discrepancy was considered reasonable, and the appellate authority had accepted that the variation could be due to foaming and possible error in dip reading. No material was shown to dislodge that factual conclusion or to justify interference with it.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty were not warranted, and the departmental appeal was rejected.

---