Misdeclaration and redemption fine under Customs law: confiscability upheld, but absolute confiscation set aside in favour of redemption option.

Export goods found to contain sandalwood oil were misdeclared in description and value, with the record supporting intentional alteration and undervaluation, so they were liable to confiscation. However, where the goods were not shown to be absolutely prohibited for export, Section 125 of the Customs Act requires the adjudicating authority to ordinarily offer redemption on payment of fine; absolute confiscation is exceptional. The confiscation finding was maintained, but the matter was remanded for determination of redemption fine instead of sustaining absolute confiscation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the export consignment was misdeclared in description and value so as to render it liable to confiscation; (ii) Whether absolute confiscation was justified or the owners were entitled to an option of redemption fine under the Customs Act.

Issue (i): Whether the export consignment was misdeclared in description and value so as to render it liable to confiscation.

Analysis: The evidence showed that the declared export item was not the real goods. The goods were found to contain sandalwood oil, and the appellants' own statements indicated that the export description and declared value were intentionally altered to conceal the nature of the goods and to understate the value. The record also supported the finding of undervaluation.

Conclusion: The consignment was misdeclared in description and value and was liable to confiscation.

Issue (ii): Whether absolute confiscation was justified or the owners were entitled to an option of redemption fine under the Customs Act.

Analysis: Though the goods were found liable to confiscation, the controlling view held that the power under Section 125 of the Customs Act requires an option of redemption in the case of goods that are not absolutely prohibited for export. Absolute confiscation was held to be an exceptional course and not the normal rule where redemption can be granted. On that basis, the confiscation order was set aside for the limited purpose of enabling fixation of redemption fine by the Commissioner.

Conclusion: The goods were not to be absolutely confiscated and the matter was to be remanded for determination of redemption fine.

Final Conclusion: The finding of misdeclaration and confiscability was maintained, but the matter was sent back for consideration of redemption fine instead of sustaining absolute confiscation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where confiscation is authorized but the goods are not shown to be absolutely prohibited, the adjudicating authority must ordinarily provide an option to redeem the goods on payment of fine, and absolute confiscation should be reserved for exceptional cases.

---