Misdeclaration of imported goods' weight sustains confiscation for false declaration, but not prohibition-based confiscation.

Material misdeclaration of the declared weight of imported goods, where duty was chargeable on a weight basis, rendered the import declaration not true and correct and sustained confiscation for misdeclaration under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The same discrepancy did not make the goods prohibited goods, so confiscation under Section 111(d) was not justified and was set aside. Because confiscation survived only on the misdeclaration basis, the redemption fine and penalty were reduced.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether misdeclaration of the weight of imported goods warranted confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) whether the goods could be treated as prohibited goods so as to attract confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962; and (iii) whether the redemption fine and penalty required reduction.

Issue (i): whether misdeclaration of the weight of imported goods warranted confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The declared weight and the examined weight of the imported items differed materially, and duty on part of the goods was chargeable on a weight basis. The declaration filed under Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962 was therefore not true and correct in respect of the weight shown.

Conclusion: Confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 was upheld.

Issue (ii): whether the goods could be treated as prohibited goods so as to attract confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The goods were not prohibited goods, and the mere misdeclaration of weight did not establish contravention of the prohibition clause.

Conclusion: Confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 was set aside.

Issue (iii): whether the redemption fine and penalty required reduction.

Analysis: In view of the limited sustainment of confiscation only on the footing of misdeclaration, the monetary consequences were reduced.

Conclusion: The redemption fine and penalty were reduced.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part: confiscation survived solely on the ground of misdeclaration, while the finding under the prohibition clause was annulled and the monetary penalties were scaled down.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imported goods are found to be misdeclared on a material aspect such as weight, confiscation for misdeclaration is sustainable, but goods cannot be treated as prohibited goods in the absence of a legal prohibition attracting the statutory bar.

---