Confiscation and redemption fine fail where goods remained in the factory and no clandestine removal was shown.

Confiscation of goods cannot be sustained merely because the goods were not properly accounted for if they remained in the factory premises and there was no evidence of removal, attempted removal, or clandestine clearance without payment of duty. On those facts, the redemption fine was also unsustainable and was set aside. The penalty relating to improper maintenance of records stood on a different footing and was not disputed, so it was confirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of goods and the redemption fine were sustainable when the goods were found lying in the factory premises and no clandestine removal or attempt to remove them was established.

Analysis: The confiscation could be justified only where the goods had been removed, were being prepared for removal, or were seized in circumstances showing an attempt at clandestine clearance without payment of duty. Where the goods remained within the factory, without evidence of actual or attempted removal, the mere non-accountal or discrepancy in records did not by itself sustain confiscation and redemption fine. The penalty for improper maintenance of records stood on a different footing and was not disputed.

Conclusion: The confiscation and redemption fine were set aside. The penalty was confirmed.

---