Misdeclaration in export goods justified confiscation, redemption fine and penalty where concealed non-basmati rice was found.

Goods concealed as basmati rice but found to contain non-basmati rice were treated as a fraudulent attempt to export goods contrary to the applicable export policy and DGFT notification. On that record, confiscation was justified, and the redemption fine and penalty were upheld as proportionate to the misconduct. As the redemption fine had already been reduced in appeal, no further interference was warranted with the punitive or confiscatory measures, and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of the goods, the redemption fine, and the penalty imposed for attempted export of non-basmati rice in the guise of basmati rice called for interference.

Analysis: The goods were found to contain non-basmati rice concealed in consignments declared as basmati rice. The export was contrary to the export policy applicable to Entry No. 45A of Chapter 10 of the Export Licensing Schedule and the relevant DGFT notification. The record supported a finding of fraudulent attempt to export prohibited goods, justifying confiscation and penal action. The redemption fine had already been reduced in appeal, and the penalty was considered appropriate in light of the illegal export attempt.

Conclusion: No reduction or further interference was warranted in respect of the confiscation, redemption fine, or penalty.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the adjudication failed, and the punitive and confiscatory measures were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: When goods are attempted to be exported in violation of the export policy through deliberate misdeclaration and concealment, confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty are justified if supported by the record and proportionate to the misconduct.

---