Confiscation of export goods upheld, but redemption fine and penalty reduced because the goods were admitted to be non-basmati rice.

Confiscation of exported goods was sustained because the appellant's own admission established that the goods were non-basmati rice. On those facts, the monetary consequences were found excessive, as the goods had already been taken back to town, and the redemption fine and penalty were moderated. The confiscation order remained undisturbed, but the redemption fine and penalty were reduced on factual grounds.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of the exported goods and the imposition of redemption fine and penalty were justified, and whether the quantum of redemption fine and penalty required reduction.

Analysis: The appellant's own admission that the goods were non-basmati rice was accepted as sufficient to sustain confiscation. Since the goods had been taken back to town, the factual circumstances justified moderation of the monetary consequences. The earlier fine and penalty were therefore considered excessive on the facts.

Conclusion: Confiscation was upheld. The redemption fine and penalty were reduced.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of reduction in redemption fine and penalty, while the confiscation order remained undisturbed.

---