Customs confiscation of misdeclared imports sustained in part, with redemption fine reduced for excess severity

Imported goods declared as synthetic rags were found on examination to include serviceable garments or garments cut into two pieces. Because the importers held licences covering garments and had expressed willingness to treat the goods as garments for speedy clearance, confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act was not justified. However, as the goods did not wholly match the declaration, confiscation under Section 111(m) was sustained. The redemption fine was considered excessive in the surrounding circumstances and was reduced to Rupee one per kilogram.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of the imported goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable, whether confiscation under Section 111(m) was justified, and whether the redemption fine required reduction.

Analysis: The goods were declared as synthetic rags, but examination showed that a part of the consignments consisted of serviceable garments or garments cut into two pieces. The importers had stated that they were willing to treat the goods as garments for speedy clearance and had produced import licences covering garments. Since the licences produced were for garments, confiscation under Section 111(d) was not justified. However, as the goods were not wholly as declared, confiscation under Section 111(m) was sustainable. In view of the surrounding facts, the redemption fine was found excessive and required reduction.

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

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only to the extent of relief against confiscation under Section 111(d) and reduction of the redemption fine.

---