Misdeclaration of imported goods sustains confiscation for false description, while licence acceptance may defeat another ground.

Incorrect description of imported goods as synthetic rags justified confiscation for misdeclaration, because examination showed that part of the consignments consisted of serviceable garments or garments cut into two pieces. Confiscation under clause (d) of Section 111 was not sustainable where the import licences produced for garments were accepted and debited and the goods were agreed in writing to be treated as garments for speedy clearance. Confiscation under clause (m) of Section 111 remained sustainable on account of the false description of the goods, and the redemption fine was reduced in light of the facts.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of the imported goods was sustainable under clause (d) and clause (m) of Section 111, and whether the redemption fine required reduction.

Analysis: The goods were declared as synthetic rags, but examination showed that part of the consignments consisted of serviceable garments or garments cut into two pieces. The importers had agreed in writing to treat the goods as garments for speedy clearance and had produced import licences covering garments. In those circumstances, confiscation under clause (d) was not justified because the licences produced were accepted and debited. Confiscation under clause (m) remained sustainable in view of the incorrect description of the goods. Considering the facts, the redemption fine was found to warrant reduction.

Conclusion: Confiscation under clause (d) of Section 111 was set aside, confiscation under clause (m) of Section 111 was upheld, and the redemption fine was reduced to Re. 1 per kilogram.

---