Redemption fine cannot be imposed without available goods; penalty challenge also failed for want of a substantial question of law.

Redemption fine cannot be imposed when the confiscable goods are not physically available, and the Bombay HC followed its earlier view to that effect. On penalty, the Court found no substantial question of law because the Commissioner of Customs had already reduced the penalty, so judicial interference was unwarranted. The appeal therefore failed and was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether redemption fine could be imposed when the goods were not physically available for confiscation. (ii) Whether any substantial question of law arose on the question of penalty.

Issue (i): Whether redemption fine could be imposed when the goods were not physically available for confiscation.

Analysis: The Court followed its earlier view that where the goods were not available for confiscation, redemption fine could not be imposed.

Conclusion: Redemption fine was not imposable.

Issue (ii): Whether any substantial question of law arose on the question of penalty.

Analysis: The penalty had already been reduced by the Commissioner of Customs, and the Court found that no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

Conclusion: The challenge to penalty did not succeed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Redemption fine cannot be imposed when the goods are not physically available for confiscation, and interference on penalty is not warranted in the absence of a substantial question of law.

---