Customs confiscation requires conscious concealment under Section 119, while prohibited shells and cartridges remained liable to confiscation.

Section 119 of the Customs Act applies only where goods are consciously and physically used to conceal smuggled goods; on the stated facts, imported heavy melting scrap bought on high sea sale basis with shipping documents and certificates did not meet that test, so confiscation and penalty were deleted. By contrast, used, rusted, broken shells and cartridges found in the consignment were treated as prohibited goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(d); the absolute confiscation was upheld, but the penalty was confined to the value of the confiscated prohibited goods and not the value of the entire consignment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the confiscation of the heavy melting scrap under Section 119 of the Customs Act and the consequential penalty were sustainable; (ii) whether the absolute confiscation of 0.620 M.T. of used, rusted, broken shells and cartridges under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and the corresponding penalty were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the confiscation of the heavy melting scrap under Section 119 of the Customs Act and the consequential penalty were sustainable.

Analysis: Section 119 applies only where goods are used for concealing smuggled goods and concealment must be conscious and physical in nature. The imported scrap was purchased on high sea sale basis against shipping documents and certificates stating that the consignment did not contain war material. On these facts, the requisite intention to conceal was not established, and the scrap could not be treated as having been used to conceal the prohibited goods within the meaning of Section 119.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the heavy melting scrap under Section 119 of the Customs Act was not sustainable and the connected penalty was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the absolute confiscation of 0.620 M.T. of used, rusted, broken shells and cartridges under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and the corresponding penalty were sustainable.

Analysis: The seized shells and cartridges were found in the imported consignment and were liable to confiscation as prohibited goods. The finding of absolute confiscation was upheld, but the penalty had to be confined to the value of the confiscated goods, and not to the value of the entire consignment.

Conclusion: The absolute confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act was upheld and the penalty was sustained only to the extent of the value of the confiscated prohibited goods.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part, with confiscation and penalty under Section 119 being deleted while the confiscation of the prohibited shells and cartridges and the corresponding restricted penalty were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Confiscation under Section 119 of the Customs Act requires proof that goods were consciously and physically used for concealment, and absent such intention the provision cannot be invoked.

---