Confiscation and redemption fine confined to undeclared goods; past-cleared imports escape fine, with penalties reduced.

Confiscation was confined to the undeclared portion of the imported consignment because the misdeclaration related only to those goods, and redemption fine had to be computed on that value alone. Goods cleared long earlier and no longer available for confiscation could not attract confiscation or redemption fine under Section 125. Duty was not recoverable on confiscated but unredeemed goods, and consequential adjustment or refund was required. The penalty under Section 114A was reduced, the Section 112(a) penalty on the importers was sustained, and the penalty on the Managing Director was also reduced.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether only the undeclared goods were liable to confiscation and whether redemption fine could be imposed only on that value; (ii) whether confiscation and redemption fine could be sustained for past-cleared goods not available for confiscation; (iii) whether duty could be demanded on goods confiscated but not redeemed; and (iv) whether the penalties under Section 114A and Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 required modification.

Issue (i): whether only the undeclared goods were liable to confiscation and whether redemption fine could be imposed only on that value.

Analysis: The undisclosed items found in the consignment were only a part of the declared import and the misdeclaration related to those specific goods. The value relevant for confiscation was therefore confined to the undeclared portion and not the entire consignment as shown in the bill of entry. Redemption fine had to be worked out on the value of the confiscable goods and not on the total declared value.

Conclusion: Only the undeclared goods were liable to confiscation, and the redemption fine was reduced accordingly.

Issue (ii): whether confiscation and redemption fine could be sustained for past-cleared goods not available for confiscation.

Analysis: Goods already cleared long back and no longer available for confiscation could not be subjected to confiscation or redemption fine under Section 125. The legal basis for redemption fine presupposes availability of the goods for confiscation, and that requirement was absent for the earlier imports.

Conclusion: Confiscation and redemption fine in respect of the past-cleared goods were set aside.

Issue (iii): whether duty could be demanded on goods confiscated but not redeemed.

Analysis: Where the goods were confiscated but not redeemed, duty could not be insisted upon in respect of such goods. The amount already deposited had to be adjusted, and no further duty was payable on that portion.

Conclusion: Duty was not recoverable on the confiscated but unredeemed goods, and consequential adjustment/refund was directed.

Issue (iv): whether the penalties under Section 114A and Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 required modification.

Analysis: The mandatory penalty under Section 114A was warranted, but the quantum imposed was excessive and required reduction. The penalty on the importers for pre-28.9.96 imports under Section 112(a) was sustained, while the penalty on the Managing Director was considered high and reduced.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 114A was reduced, the penalty under Section 112(a) on the importers was confirmed, and the penalty on the Managing Director was reduced.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part: the scope of confiscation was narrowed to the undeclared goods, redemption fine and related duty consequences were curtailed for the earlier imports, and the penalties were modified to the extent indicated.

Ratio Decidendi: Confiscation and redemption fine must be confined to the goods actually liable on the proved misdeclaration, and redemption fine cannot be imposed for goods not available for confiscation.

---