Redemption fine requires seizure or provisional release on bond; absent that basis, fine was not payable.

Redemption fine could not be imposed where the importer's bond was executed only to secure compliance with the Advance Licence Scheme exemption conditions, not for provisional release of goods. The record showed that the goods were neither seized nor provisionally released against any specific bond, and the precedent cited by Revenue was distinguishable because it involved seized goods later released provisionally on bond. On those facts, the foundation for invoking redemption fine was absent, and the order dropping redemption fine was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether redemption fine could be imposed when the goods were neither seized nor provisionally released against a specific bond, and the bond executed was only for compliance with the conditions of the exemption notification.

Analysis: The bond executed by the importer was only to ensure compliance with Notification No. 149/95-Cus dated 19.09.1995 under the Advance Licence Scheme. It was not a bond for provisional release of goods. The record showed that the goods were never seized and were not released provisionally against any specific provisional release bond. The precedent relied on by Revenue was distinguishable because, in that case, the goods had been seized and then provisionally released on execution of bond. On these facts, the basis for invoking redemption fine did not arise.

Conclusion: Redemption fine was not payable. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed and the order dropping redemption fine was upheld.

---