Confiscation and duty evasion penalties upheld where admitted lapses showed deliberate clearances of non-duty paid goods.

Confiscation of fabrics and the tempo used for transporting non-duty paid goods was upheld as legally sustainable because the admitted lapses and surrounding circumstances showed deliberate clearances and an attempt to evade duty. The redemption fines and penalty were found not excessive, and confiscation of fabrics used to conceal or camouflage duty-paid goods was also justified. Mens rea was noted as relevant only for a personal penalty, but no such personal penalty had been imposed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of the fabrics and tempo, the redemption fines, and the penalty imposed in the duty evasion matter were legally sustainable.

Analysis: The petitioners had admitted lapses and the surrounding circumstances supported an inference that the clearances of non-duty paid goods were deliberate and amounted to an attempt to evade duty. The order of confiscation of the fabrics and the tempo used for transport was held to be correct in law, and the fines and penalty were found not to be excessive. As regards the fabrics used for concealing or camouflaging duty-paid goods, the confiscation was upheld as justified and sustainable. It was also observed that mens rea was relevant only for imposition of personal penalty, and no such penalty had been imposed in that matter.

Conclusion: The confiscation, redemption fines and penalty were upheld and the revision applications were rejected.

---