Confiscation for breach of transport requirements does not justify absolute confiscation without clear intent to smuggle.

Silver seized from the appellant was liable to confiscation under customs law because it was not covered by the required transport voucher, and the penalty was maintainable. However, in the absence of a clear finding that the silver was brought to Surat with intent to smuggle it out of India, absolute confiscation was not justified. The appropriate course was release on payment of redemption fine. Absolute confiscation was therefore set aside, the silver was ordered to be released on redemption fine, and the penalty was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the silver seized from the appellant was liable to confiscation and penalty under the customs law, and whether absolute confiscation could be sustained.

Analysis: The silver was seized from the appellant at Surat and was not covered by the required transport voucher, so liability to confiscation was made out. Penalty was also maintainable. However, there was no clear finding that the silver had been brought to Surat with the intention of smuggling it out of India, and the record did not justify treating the case as one warranting absolute confiscation. In such circumstances, release on payment of redemption fine was the appropriate course.

Conclusion: Absolute confiscation was set aside. The silver was ordered to be released on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 30,000, while the penalty was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are liable to confiscation for breach of transport requirements but there is no clear finding of intent to smuggle, absolute confiscation is not warranted and redemption on fine may be ordered.

---