Redemption fine requires culpable conduct and cannot be imposed once cleared goods are no longer available for confiscation.

Redemption fine is not automatic merely because goods are liable to confiscation; the person burdened must be shown to have committed an act or omission attracting liability. Where the importer was not found guilty of any violation, imposing the fine offended natural justice and fair play. Once the goods had already been cleared by Customs and were no longer available for confiscation, redemption did not properly arise. The in rem character of proceedings against goods did not justify penal consequences against a person who had committed no offence.

---

---

Issues: Whether redemption fine and confiscation could be sustained against an importer who was not found guilty of any violation and whose goods had already been released after payment of duty.

Analysis: Liability to pay redemption fine is not automatic merely because goods are liable to confiscation. The person from whom the fine is recovered must be shown to have committed an act of omission or commission attracting the law. Where the importer was admittedly not found guilty at any stage, imposing a financial burden would offend natural justice and fair play. Further, once the goods had already been cleared by Customs and were no longer available for confiscation, the question of redemption did not properly arise. The principle that action against goods is in rem did not justify penal consequences against a person who had committed no offence.

Conclusion: The redemption fine was unsustainable and the order imposing liability on the importer was liable to be set aside.

---