Judgments

RANGANATH MISRA, J. (for himself and Pathak, C. J.) (concurring)- We have had the benefit of reading the judgment proposed by my learned Brother Ray, J. We agree with the conclusion that respondent 1 is liable for the loss or damage to the goods and would like to briefly indicate the reasons for such conclusion.

2. The appellants imported 58 bales of woollen rags through the State Trading Corporation from Canada. When the goods arrived at Calcutta, the Customs authorities called upon the appellants to show cause as to why the same may not be confiscated under the provisions of the Customs Act (hereafter referred to as the Act). After hearing the appellants, as also the State Trading Corporation, respondent 1, to which a notice was also issued, the Collector of Customs by his order of March 12, 1981 directed confiscation of the goods in exercise of power under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act but in lieu of confiscation, the appellants were given the option under Section 125 of the Act to clear the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs 50,000. The appellants appealed to the Central Board of Excise and Customs which sustained the order of confiscation but reduced