Misdeclaration for duty benefit supports confiscation, but redemption fine is limited to goods actually available for confiscation.

Deliberate misdeclaration of imported goods as medicaments to obtain duty benefit justified confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, because the record showed the goods were in substance animal feed supplement classifiable under Chapter 23. The challenge to reclassification failed. Redemption fine, however, could be imposed only on goods actually available for confiscation, not on past clearances already released, so the monetary liabilities were reduced and confined to the live consignment. Penalty was also reduced accordingly.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the imported goods were correctly classifiable as animal feed supplement under Chapter 23 or as medicaments under Chapter 30; and (ii) whether confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were sustainable, and to what extent.

Issue (i): Whether the imported goods were correctly classifiable as animal feed supplement under Chapter 23 or as medicaments under Chapter 30.

Analysis: The appellate record showed that the importer had accepted the reclassification before the lower appellate authority and had also paid the differential duty. The description inserted in the bill of entry as medicaments was not supported by the invoice, and the adjudicating and appellate authorities had examined the classification in detail. On the material available, the goods were held to be animal feed supplement classifiable under Chapter 23 of the Customs Tariff Act.

Conclusion: The classification under Chapter 23 was upheld and the challenge to reclassification failed.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were sustainable, and to what extent.

Analysis: The misdescription of the goods as medicaments was found to be deliberate and aimed at securing duty benefit under the exemption notification and evading customs duty. That established the ingredients for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. However, redemption fine could be imposed only in relation to goods actually available for confiscation, and not for past clearances already released. The goods covered by the live bill of entry alone could bear redemption fine and the consequential penalty required reduction.

Conclusion: Confiscation was restored, while redemption fine and penalty were reduced to a nominal amount confined to the seized goods.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part: the finding of misdeclaration and confiscability was affirmed, but the monetary liabilities were substantially reduced because fine could not be levied on goods not available for confiscation.

Ratio Decidendi: Deliberate misdeclaration to obtain duty benefit justifies confiscation under Section 111(m), but redemption fine is confined to goods available for confiscation and cannot be imposed on past clearances already released.

---