Redemption of confiscated goods may be allowed despite alleged non-existence of importer; absolute confiscation is not automatic.

Return of notice with an endorsement that no such person exists is not conclusive proof that the importer is non-existent; the possibility of a address or relocation remains open. Under Section 125 of the Customs Act, the authority must decide on the facts whether confiscated goods should be redeemed on payment of fine or subjected to absolute confiscation, and non-existence of the importer does not by itself require absolute confiscation. The redemption option was upheld, and the request to enhance the penalty was rejected for want of sufficient ground.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether confiscated goods could be redeemed on payment of fine under Section 125 despite the contention that the importer was non-existent and the goods should be absolutely confiscated; (ii) whether the penalty imposed required enhancement.

Issue (i): Whether confiscated goods could be redeemed on payment of fine under Section 125 despite the contention that the importer was non-existent and the goods should be absolutely confiscated.

Analysis: The return of notice with an endorsement that no such person existed was not treated as conclusive proof that the importer was non-existent. The possibility that the importer had furnished a wrong address or had moved away was not excluded. It was also recognised that Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 requires the authority to decide whether redemption on payment of fine or absolute confiscation is appropriate on the facts of the case. Absolute confiscation may be a practical course where ownership is not apparent, but non-existence of the importer by itself does not automatically compel that result.

Conclusion: The redemption option was upheld and absolute confiscation was not directed.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed required enhancement.

Analysis: The request for enhancement was found inconsistent with the contention that the importer was non-existent. In any event, no sufficient ground was found to interfere with the penalty already imposed.

Conclusion: The penalty was not enhanced.

Final Conclusion: The departmental appeal did not succeed on the substantive reliefs sought and the order stood as modified only to the extent of clarifying the redemption option.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-service of notice or return of notice with an endorsement of non-existence is not by itself conclusive proof that the importer does not exist, and the choice between redemption and absolute confiscation must be made under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the facts of the case.

---