Mis-declaration in natural rubber imports requires proof of mala fide intent before confiscation, fine, or penalty can stand.

Imported natural rubber declared as SVR-10 was examined for alleged mis-declaration and violation of the Rubber Act and the Rubber Rules. The documents matched the description, were backed by the exporter's laboratory certificate, and the importer relied on purchase order and shipping papers before import. A local test by the Rubber Board revealed the discrepancy later, but the importer's prior conduct, regular trade pattern, and the exporter's subsequent replacement of the goods indicated no deliberate false declaration. In the absence of mala fide intent, suppression, or contumacious conduct, confiscation was not justified and the associated redemption fine and penalty were unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported natural rubber was liable to confiscation for mis-declaration or violation of the Rubber Act and the Rubber Rules, and whether the consequential redemption fine and penalty were sustainable.

Analysis: The import documents showed the goods as natural rubber SVR-10 and were supported by a laboratory test certificate from the exporter's side. The discrepancy was noticed only on local testing by the Rubber Board, and the importer had acted on the basis of the purchase order and shipping documents. The importer was a regular importer of similar goods and had taken precautions before import. The later replacement of the goods by the exporter also supported the absence of any deliberate false declaration. On these facts, no mala fide, suppression, or contumacious conduct was established.

Conclusion: The goods were not liable for confiscation, and the redemption fine and penalty were not sustainable.

---