Customs misclassification alone is insufficient for confiscation or penalty without proof of deliberate misdeclaration or duty evasion.

Mere incorrect customs classification did not, by itself, justify confiscation, redemption fine or penalty where the declared value was accepted and the record showed no deliberate misdescription, collusion or intent to evade duty. The goods were described and re-tested as different kinds of woven fabrics, but there was no material to show that the importer knowingly used the wrong tariff heading or made a mala fide declaration. In the absence of such ingredients, Section 111(m) was not attracted and the setting aside of confiscation, redemption fine and penalties was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation, redemption fine and penalties were justified merely because the imported goods were ultimately held to be classifiable under a different customs tariff heading, despite acceptance of the declared value and absence of evidence of deliberate misdeclaration or mala fide intent.

Analysis: The declared and re-tested descriptions related to different kinds of woven fabrics, and the record did not show that the importer had deliberately described the goods under an incorrect heading with a view to evade duty. The valuation declared by the importer was ultimately accepted, there was no allegation of collusion with the foreign supplier, and no material showing that the importer knew the goods to be corduroy or intentionally chose the wrong classification. In these circumstances, the mere fact that the classification claimed by the importer was found incorrect did not by itself establish the ingredients for confiscation under Section 111(m) or justify redemption fine and penalty.

Conclusion: The order setting aside confiscation, redemption fine and penalties was upheld, as the case did not disclose mala fide misdeclaration or intent to evade duty.

---