Notified goods confiscation and redemption fine reduced where breach was technical, while disputed VCR receipt issue was remitted for re-verification.

Notified imported goods found in residential premises remained liable to confiscation where the prescribed memorandum of transfer was absent, even though the goods were duty paid. Because the breach was technical and the goods were for personal use, the redemption fine was reduced rather than upheld at the original level. The National VCR issue was not finally decided because the supporting baggage receipt was disputed and the receipt number appeared inconsistent; the matter was remitted for re-verification of Customs records and fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported colour television, radio cassette recorder, and video cassette equipment seized from residential premises were liable to confiscation and the redemption fine required interference. (ii) Whether the question of confiscation of the National VCR required re-verification and fresh adjudication.

Issue (i): Whether the imported colour television, radio cassette recorder, and video cassette equipment seized from residential premises were liable to confiscation and the redemption fine required interference.

Analysis: The goods were notified goods and the statutory prohibition on acquisition of such goods applied unless supported by the prescribed voucher or memorandum of transfer. The record showed that the goods were duty paid, and the absence of the memorandum did not eliminate confiscability. At the same time, the offence was only technical in character because duty payment was established and the goods were found in personal use, so the quantum of redemption fine called for reduction.

Conclusion: The confiscation was sustained, but the redemption fine was reduced from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 500, in favour of the assessee to that extent and otherwise against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the question of confiscation of the National VCR required re-verification and fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The validity of the baggage receipt supporting the National VCR was disputed, and there was an apparent mismatch in receipt numbers, creating doubt about the verification already undertaken. The proper course was to re-check the baggage receipt from Customs records and reconsider the matter after giving the assessee an opportunity to make further submissions.

Conclusion: The issue relating to the National VCR was remitted for re-adjudication after re-verification of the baggage receipt.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of reduction of redemption fine for the notified goods, while the National VCR issue was sent back for fresh decision after verification.

Ratio Decidendi: Notified goods acquired without the prescribed memorandum remain liable to confiscation, but where duty payment is established and the breach is technical, the redemption fine may be moderated; a disputed supporting receipt may justify remand for re-verification.

---