Redemption fine and Rule 26 penalty upheld for goods released under bond, but both were reduced on the facts.

Redemption fine on goods released under bond was held legally sustainable despite no dispute on short payment of duty, but it was reduced in light of the facts and circumstances. Penalty under Rule 26 was also upheld against a corporate body, which was treated as a juristic person for that purpose, but the amount was reduced because duty had not been quantified and the applicable ceiling was limited to Rs.10,000. The appeal succeeded only to the extent of reducing both the redemption fine and the penalty, while the levies themselves were maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether redemption fine was leviable on goods released under bond and, if so, what should be the quantum; (ii) whether penalty under Rule 26 was sustainable against a corporate body and, if so, what should be the quantum.

Issue (i): whether redemption fine was leviable on goods released under bond and, if so, what should be the quantum

Analysis: The goods had been released under bond and the short-payment of duty was not denied. On that basis, confiscation-related redemption fine was held to be legally sustainable. The quantum, however, was required to be moderated in view of the facts and circumstances, including the nature of the lapse.

Conclusion: Redemption fine was upheld but reduced to Rs.50,000/-.

Issue (ii): whether penalty under Rule 26 was sustainable against a corporate body and, if so, what should be the quantum

Analysis: A corporate entity was treated as a juristic person for the purpose of Rule 26, so penalty was held to be imposable on the appellant. As duty had not been quantified, the maximum penalty applicable in the circumstances was limited to Rs.10,000/-, warranting reduction of the penalty originally imposed.

Conclusion: Penalty under Rule 26 was upheld but reduced to Rs.10,000/-.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of reduction of redemption fine and penalty, while the levy of both was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A corporate body can be treated as a juristic person for the purpose of penalty under Rule 26, and where confiscated goods are released under bond, redemption fine may still be imposed subject to moderation on the facts.

---