Misdeclaration and prohibited goods claim failed where chemical description was disclosed and import policy did not bar the item.

Goods re-imported under a bill of entry were not misdeclared where the chemical name was disclosed, and omission of the generic name did not amount to a false declaration. Customs had itself sent the sample for examination, and the department's case wrongly proceeded on the assumption that the traders had manufactured the goods. Even if the manufacturer had breached the Drugs and Cosmetics law, that did not by itself make the imported goods prohibited under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, particularly as the Import Policy did not bar the item. Confiscation was therefore not justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the re-imported goods were misdeclared and liable to confiscation as prohibited goods under the Customs Act on the basis of alleged violations of the Drugs and Cosmetics law.

Analysis: The description in the bill of entry disclosed the chemical name of the product. Non-mention of the generic name did not amount to a false declaration, particularly when the Customs authorities themselves forwarded the sample for examination by the Assistant Drug Controller. The materials relied upon by the department proceeded on the assumption that the respondents had manufactured the goods, whereas the respondents were only traders who had procured the goods from another manufacturer and the goods moved under ARE-1. Even if the manufacturer had acted in breach of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, that by itself did not convert the imported goods into prohibited goods for the purpose of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Import Policy also did not prohibit import of the item.

Conclusion: There was no misdeclaration and no basis to treat the goods as prohibited for import or to sustain confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.

---