Mis-declaration of imported goods sustains confiscation when branding and physical evidence contradict the declaration and the explanation is not credible.

Imported goods physically bearing LG Chem stickers and matching packing materials were treated as mis-declared where the importer had described them as unbranded reverse osmosis elements. The Tribunal found the explanation that the goods were trial production items and that the stickers were affixed by mistake to be implausible in light of the physical examination and surrounding circumstances. It inferred collusion between the importer and the shipper on the declaration and upheld confiscation with redemption fine, finding no illegality in the impugned order. The mis-declaration finding was sustained and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported goods were mis-declared in respect of brand and description so as to attract confiscation under the Customs Act, and whether the appeal against the order sustaining confiscation and redemption fine was liable to be dismissed.

Analysis: The goods were found with LG Chem stickers and packing materials bearing the same brand, while the importer had declared them as unbranded reverse osmosis elements. The explanation that they were trial production goods and that the stickers were affixed by mistake was found unbelievable in view of the physical examination and surrounding circumstances. On that basis, the Tribunal inferred collusion between the importer and the shipper regarding the declaration of the goods. The Tribunal upheld the finding that the goods were mis-declared and liable to confiscation, and found no impropriety or illegality in the impugned order.

Conclusion: The mis-declaration finding was sustained and the appeal was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The importer was not entitled to relief, and the confiscation-related order as upheld by the appellate authority remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imported goods are physically found bearing a brand that contradicts the declaration and the importer's explanation is not credible, mis-declaration attracting confiscation may be sustained on the basis of the surrounding evidence and inferences of collusion.

---