Misdeclaration not established where declared goods matched documents and examination findings; confiscation and penalty were set aside.

Declared description in the bill of entry matched the supplier's documents, and examination showed the goods were old and used as declared. A contrary view that the goods were serviceable did not establish import of different goods or any misdeclaration. On that factual basis, confiscation was not made out, and the redemption fine and penalty were unsustainable and were set aside. The ancillary issue concerning supply from the Exclusive Economic Zone was not examined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the goods were misdeclared so as to justify confiscation and the consequential redemption fine and penalty.

Analysis: The declared description in the bill of entry matched the supplier's documents and the examination revealed that the goods were old and used as declared. The only difference noted was that the examiner opined the goods were serviceable, but that did not establish that different goods had been imported or that there was any misdeclaration. Since the factual basis for confiscation was not made out, the ancillary question relating to supply from the Exclusive Economic Zone was not examined.

Conclusion: There was no misdeclaration and the goods were not liable to confiscation. The redemption fine and penalty were therefore unsustainable and were set aside.

---