Confiscation of undocumented scrap upheld, but redemption fine on bonded provisional release was disallowed and penalty reduced.

Removal of scrap without documents and excess stock in the factory was supported by the driver's and commercial executive's statements, so the challenge to confiscation and seizure failed. Goods provisionally released against bond could not be treated as confiscated with an option of redemption fine; the proper course was enforcement of the bond, and the redemption fine was set aside. The personal penalty on the second appellant was found excessive in light of financial condition and surrounding circumstances, so it was reduced substantially.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether confiscation and rejection of the first appellant's challenge to seizure and non-accountal of scrap called for interference. (ii) Whether redemption fine could be sustained in respect of goods provisionally released against bond. (iii) Whether the personal penalty imposed on the second appellant required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether confiscation and rejection of the first appellant's challenge to seizure and non-accountal of scrap called for interference.

Analysis: The available statements of the driver and the appellants' commercial executive showed removal of scrap without documents and excess quantity in the factory. No material was produced to displace the findings reached by the lower authorities on the basis of these statements and the records.

Conclusion: The challenge failed and the order against the first appellant was sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether redemption fine could be sustained in respect of goods provisionally released against bond.

Analysis: The goods had been provisionally released against bond. Following the earlier Tribunal view that such goods cannot be confiscated with an option to redeem on payment of fine, the proper course was enforcement of the bond rather than imposition of redemption fine.

Conclusion: The redemption fine was not maintainable and was set aside.

Issue (iii): Whether the personal penalty imposed on the second appellant required reduction.

Analysis: Considering the appellant's financial condition and the circumstances of the case, the penalty was found to be excessive and liable to moderation.

Conclusion: The penalty was reduced from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 500.

Final Conclusion: The first appeal was rejected, while the second appeal succeeded in part by setting aside the redemption fine and substantially reducing the penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods provisionally released against bond cannot be confirmed as confiscated with an option of redemption fine; the proper remedy is enforcement of the bond, and penalty may be reduced where the circumstances justify moderation.

---