Redemption fine may be reduced despite upheld confiscation when prolonged warehousing and goods condition justify mitigation.

Imported goods were liable to confiscation because the licences produced did not cover the consignments, so the confiscation was upheld. The only surviving issue was the quantum of redemption fine. The tribunal accepted that depreciation and the condition of the goods had already been considered, but rejected parity with earlier cases because they arose in a different factual and policy setting. Prolonged warehousing was treated as a mitigating circumstance, and the redemption fine was reduced accordingly.

---

---

Issues: Whether the redemption fine imposed on confiscated imported goods was excessive and required reduction.

Analysis: The importers did not dispute that the licences produced for clearance did not cover the goods imported, and the goods were therefore liable to confiscation. The only surviving controversy was the quantum of redemption fine. The authorities had already taken into account the goods' condition and allowed depreciation while fixing the fine. The plea for parity with earlier cases was rejected because those cases arose in a different factual and policy setting and were not comparable to the present import. However, the long period during which the goods had remained in warehouse was treated as a relevant mitigating circumstance.

Conclusion: The redemption fine was held to be liable for reduction, and it was reduced from Rs. 3,00,000 to Rs. 2,50,000.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation remained undisturbed, but the penalty burden was moderated by lowering the redemption fine.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imported goods are liable to confiscation for want of valid licence coverage, the redemption fine may still be reduced on mitigating facts such as prolonged warehousing and the condition of the goods, even though the confiscation itself is upheld.

---