Redemption fine and penalty in customs confiscation will stand absent proof of mala fides or misdeclaration.

In confiscation matters, the quantum of redemption fine will not be interfered with where the record does not show mala fides, misdeclaration, or any material basis for a higher fine on alleged profit margin. The absence of convincing evidence of deliberate import without licence also leaves no ground to impose penalty. The commentary notes that, on the facts, the discretion exercised by the Collector was not shown to be unsustainable, so the challenge to both the fine and the refusal of penalty failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the redemption fine imposed on confiscated imported goods and the decision not to impose penalty on the importer called for interference.

Analysis: The imported goods had been confiscated under the Customs law and released only on payment of redemption fine. The record did not disclose material to support the department's plea that the fine was inadequate or that a higher fine was warranted on the basis of alleged margin of profit. Likewise, no convincing material was produced to establish deliberate import without licence or misdeclaration so as to justify penalty. The Collector had exercised discretion on the facts, including the absence of satisfactory material showing mala fides, and there was no sufficient ground to disturb that exercise of discretion.

Conclusion: The challenge to the quantum of redemption fine and to the non-imposition of penalty failed; the order was sustained in favour of the importer.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of material showing mala fides, misdeclaration, or an unsustainable exercise of discretion, the Tribunal will not interfere with the quantum of redemption fine or the refusal to impose penalty in confiscation matters.

---