Misdeclaration and DEEC exemption denial upheld where imported granules were LLDPE, not LDPE; confiscation sustained, with reduced fine and penalty.

Imported granules declared as LDPE were found to be LLDPE, and the DEEC-related exemption failed because licences were issued separately for each commodity and one could not be substituted for the other. The importer produced no evidence of orders for the declared commodity or of absence of misdeclaration, and the LDPE/LLDPE distinction was recognised in trade practice. On those facts, confiscation and liability to duty were sustained, while redemption fine and penalty were reduced; duty remained payable unless valid current licences covering the import were produced.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported goods were misdeclared as LDPE although they were LLDPE, whether the benefit of exemption under the DEEC-related customs notification was available, and whether confiscation, duty, fine and penalty were sustainable.

Analysis: The imported granules were found to be LLDPE and not LDPE. Although both fall under the same tariff sub-heading, the licences were issued separately for the two categories and the goods could not be substituted one for the other for duty-free import under the scheme. The appellant did not produce evidence of orders placed for the declared commodity or of absence of misdeclaration. The distinction between LDPE and LLDPE was also recognised in trade practice. On these facts, the exemption claim failed and the goods were liable to confiscation and penalty, though some leniency was justified in the quantum of fine and penalty. Duty remained payable unless currently valid licences covering the import were produced.

Conclusion: The finding of misdeclaration and denial of exemption was upheld. Confiscation was sustained, while the redemption fine and penalty were reduced. Duty was held payable unless valid current licences were produced.

---