Misdeclaration and restricted import claims failed where evidence showed the goods were parts of a later-cleared second-hand machine.

Imported goods shown by the evidence to be parts of a machine later imported and cleared as second-hand capital goods were not liable to confiscation merely because the bill of entry did not use the words "used" or "second-hand". The linked purchase order, matching invoice values, importer's disclosure, and Chartered Engineer's report supported the character of the goods, and Paragraph 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-09 did not make such goods restricted on the basis assumed by the authorities. On that basis, confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) and the consequential penalty under Section 112(a) were not sustainable and were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the goods covered by the first bill of entry were liable to confiscation and penalty on the grounds of restricted import and misdeclaration, when the goods were shown to be parts of a machine subsequently imported and cleared as second-hand capital goods.

Analysis: The goods under the first bill of entry were found to be linked to the main machine imported under the same purchase order, with the combined invoice values matching the purchase order value. The importer had informed the customs authority that the earlier consignment consisted of parts of the main machine, and the main machine was later cleared as second-hand capital goods. The lower authorities relied mainly on the absence of the words "used" or "second-hand" in the bill of entry. The examination report of the Chartered Engineer certified the goods as used/second-hand, and Paragraph 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-09 did not render such second-hand capital goods restricted in the manner assumed by the authorities. In these circumstances, the findings under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) and the consequential penalty under Section 112(a) could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty were unsustainable and were set aside, with relief in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the evidence establishes that the imported goods are parts of a machine subsequently imported and cleared as second-hand capital goods, mere omission to use the words "used" or "second-hand" in the bill of entry does not justify confiscation for restricted import or misdeclaration.

---