Redemption fine is unsustainable when imported goods are ordered for re-export, and duplicate penalties for the same transaction are impermissible.

Redemption fine was held unsustainable where confiscated imported goods were ordered to be re-exported rather than cleared for home consumption, because the rationale for permitting domestic retention did not apply. Penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act were also examined in light of a wrong Bill of Entry description; while some culpability was found, the original penalties were reduced as excessive. The proprietary concerns and their proprietors could not both be penalised for the same proprietary transaction, and the person acting only as a broker or intermediary was not liable on the facts. The result was deletion of the redemption fine, reduction of penalties on the principal entities, and setting aside of the penalties on the individual appellants.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether redemption fine was sustainable when the imported goods were ordered for re-export; (ii) Whether penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 were justified in full against all appellants.

Issue (i): Whether redemption fine was sustainable when the imported goods were ordered for re-export.

Analysis: The goods were not allowed for home consumption and were ordered to be re-exported. Redemption fine is ordinarily meant to permit retention of confiscated goods for enjoyment in the domestic market after breach of law. Where the goods are not being redeemed for home consumption but are required to be re-exported, the rationale for imposing redemption fine does not survive.

Conclusion: The redemption fine was not sustainable and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 were justified in full against all appellants.

Analysis: The declaration in the Bill of Entry did not correctly describe the goods, though supporting import documents and waste-management papers had been filed. Some culpability existed for the wrong declaration, but the original penalty was excessive. The proprietary concerns and their proprietors could not both be penalised for the same proprietary activity. The person shown only as a broker or intermediary was also not fit to be penalised on the facts.

Conclusion: The penalties on the principal concerns were reduced, and the penalties on the proprietors and the broker were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed in part by deleting the redemption fine, reducing the penalties on the principal entities, and setting aside the penalties on the other individual appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: Redemption fine is not warranted where confiscated goods are ordered to be re-exported rather than cleared for home consumption, and a proprietary concern and its proprietor cannot both be penalised for the same transaction.

---