Drawback export misdeclaration must be material before penalty can follow under Customs law.

Penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act cannot stand where the underlying confiscation under Section 113(ii) is based only on a non-material misdeclaration in drawback exports. The confiscation provision applies only when exported goods do not correspond in any material particular with the information furnished for fixation of drawback under Section 75; an incorrect address, by itself, was held not to be such a material particular. Because the confiscation basis was unsustainable, no foundation remained for penal liability, and the penalty was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act was sustainable when confiscation under Section 113(ii) was based only on misdeclaration of address in drawback exports.

Analysis: The confiscation of the export goods was founded on Section 113(ii), which applies to goods exported under a drawback claim that do not correspond in any material particular with information furnished for fixation of drawback under Section 75 of the Customs Act. The only discrepancy relied upon was the exporters' address. The misdeclaration of quantity and value alleged in the notice was not the basis of the confiscation, and address was held not to be a material particular relevant to fixation of drawback rate. As the confiscation itself under Section 113(ii) was unsustainable, no foundation remained for fastening penal liability on the appellant under Section 114.

Conclusion: The penalty imposed on the appellant was not sustainable and was set aside.

---