Re-export of confiscated goods does not bar redemption fine or penalty, though excessive amounts may be reduced.

Imported frozen cuttlefish cleared without the required animal quarantine or veterinary clearance was liable to confiscation under the Customs Act and foreign trade restrictions. Permission to re-export did not remove the adjudicating authority's power to impose redemption fine and penalty, because confiscation and penal consequences remained available despite re-export. The Tribunal therefore upheld the legal basis for imposing fine and penalty on goods allowed to be re-exported, but reduced both amounts on the facts as excessive and deserving interference in the interests of justice.

---

---

Issues: Whether imported goods liable to confiscation could still be permitted to be re-exported with redemption fine and penalty, and whether the quantum of fine and penalty warranted interference.

Analysis: The imported frozen cuttlefish was found to have been cleared without the requisite animal quarantine or veterinary clearance, attracting confiscation under the Customs Act read with the foreign trade restriction provision. The Tribunal applied the Larger Bench view that the power to confiscate under Section 111 and to impose penalty under Section 112 is not taken away merely because the goods are allowed to be re-exported; a request for re-export does not remove the adjudicating authority's jurisdiction to impose redemption fine and penalty. At the same time, the Tribunal found the amounts imposed to be excessive on the facts and considered reduction appropriate in the interests of justice.

Conclusion: The power to impose redemption fine and penalty on goods permitted for re-export was upheld, but the amounts were reduced from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 5 lakhs and from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 50,000, respectively.

Ratio Decidendi: Permission to re-export confiscated goods does not bar the adjudicating authority from imposing redemption fine and penalty under the Customs Act, though the quantum remains subject to judicial review for excessiveness.

---