Confiscation upheld for unsupported zip fasteners, while penalty was removed for lack of evidence of habitual smuggling dealings.

Confiscation of the zip fasteners was sustained because the purchase bills relied on to prove lawful acquisition were dated after seizure, and there was no contemporaneous evidence that the goods were covered by valid documentation at the relevant time. The explanation that the bills were prepared later when approval transactions were finalised was rejected. The penalty was nevertheless set aside because the quantity involved and the absence of material showing habitual dealing in smuggled goods justified extending the benefit of doubt on the penal aspect. Confiscation therefore remained in force, but the monetary penalty did not survive.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the confiscation of the zip fasteners was sustainable; (ii) Whether the penalty imposed on the appellant was justified.

Issue (i): Whether the confiscation of the zip fasteners was sustainable.

Analysis: The bills produced to support lawful acquisition of the zip fasteners were dated after the date of seizure. In the absence of contemporaneous evidence showing that the goods were covered by valid purchase documentation at the time of seizure, the explanation that the bills were prepared later on finalisation of approval transactions was not accepted.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the zip fasteners was upheld and was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed on the appellant was justified.

Analysis: Considering the quantity of goods involved and the absence of material showing habitual dealing in smuggled goods, the appellant was given the benefit of doubt on the penalty aspect.

Conclusion: The penalty was set aside and was in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation of the zip fasteners remained sustained, but the monetary penalty did not survive.

---