Disclosure of valuation basis and redemption option required before absolute confiscation; confiscation and penalty were set aside.

Valuation and confiscation consequences must rest on disclosed material, and the affected party is entitled to know the basis on which value, margin of profit, and penalty are proposed to be fixed. Where the goods were not prohibited, absolute confiscation without a redemption option was unsustainable, and the confiscation order could not stand in that form. The confiscation order and penalty were set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh determination of value, margin of profit, and consequential penalty after disclosure of the material relied upon.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was entitled to disclosure of the basis for valuation and margin of profit before determination of value and penalty; (ii) Whether absolute confiscation of the goods was sustainable when the goods were not prohibited and redemption option was required.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was entitled to disclosure of the basis for valuation and margin of profit before determination of value and penalty.

Analysis: The basis adopted by the department for valuing the goods was not made known to the appellant, although he had questioned the value before adjudication. The material relied upon for valuation was not adequately disclosed, and the appellant was entitled to know the foundation on which value and related consequences were proposed to be fixed.

Conclusion: This issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether absolute confiscation of the goods was sustainable when the goods were not prohibited and redemption option was required.

Analysis: Since the goods were not prohibited at the relevant time, confiscation could not be ordered absolutely without giving an option to redeem the goods. In the absence of reasons justifying absolute confiscation and without a proper basis for fixing redemption fine, the confiscation order could not be sustained in that form.

Conclusion: This issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation order and penalty were set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh determination of value, margin of profit, and consequential penalty after disclosure of the material relied upon.

Ratio Decidendi: When confiscated goods are not prohibited, an absolute confiscation order without redemption option cannot be sustained, and the material forming the basis of valuation and consequential penal consequences must be disclosed to the affected party.

---