Ownership claim and lack of adverse evidence defeated confiscation and personal penalty over seized sarees.

Confiscation of the seized sarees and the personal penalty were found unsustainable where the ownership claim was rejected only because it was made after a few days and the cash memos could not be independently verified. Delay in asserting ownership, by itself, was not treated as proof that the goods were intended for illegal export. The Revenue's enquiries also did not produce adverse material disproving the appellant's purchase of the sarees, and the absence of a duplicate cash memo was not treated as conclusive against him. On that basis, the confiscation and penalty failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of the seized sarees and the personal penalty imposed on the appellant were sustainable when the appellant asserted ownership and disputed any intention to export the goods illegally.

Analysis: The rejection of the ownership claim solely because it was lodged after a few days and because the cash memos could not be independently verified was not accepted as sufficient. Delay in asserting ownership, by itself, did not establish that the goods were meant for export. The enquiries made by the Revenue also did not yield any adverse material showing that the sarees had not been purchased by the appellant, and the absence of a duplicate cash memo was not treated as a conclusive circumstance against him.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty were not sustainable and the appeal succeeded.

---