Misdeclaration of origin and manufacture justified confiscation and company penalty, but personal penalty on the authorised signatory was deleted.

Admitted misdeclaration of origin and manufacture in a mobile phone consignment attracted treaty-based restrictions on re-export of goods imported from third countries without manufacturing activity, so confiscation, redemption fine and penalty on the company were upheld. However, personal penalty on the authorised signatory was not sustained because the record did not show separate justification beyond his representative role, and that penalty was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the mobile phone consignment, admittedly misdeclared as to origin and manufacture, was liable to confiscation with redemption fine and penalty on the company; (ii) whether personal penalty on the authorised signatory was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the mobile phone consignment, admittedly misdeclared as to origin and manufacture, was liable to confiscation with redemption fine and penalty on the company.

Analysis: The declared origin and manufacturing status of the goods was not accepted, and the misdeclaration was not disputed. The Indo-Nepal Treaty prohibits re-export of goods imported from third countries without manufacturing activity, and the treaty obligation prevails where there is inconsistency with the foreign trade regime. In that setting, confiscation of the goods and consequential redemption fine and penalty on the company were warranted.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the consignment and the redemption fine and penalty on the company were upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether personal penalty on the authorised signatory was sustainable.

Analysis: The record did not justify fastening personal penalty on the authorised signatory merely on the basis of his role as authorised representative, despite the misdeclaration attributable to the company.

Conclusion: The personal penalty on the authorised signatory was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The company's challenge failed on the merits of confiscation and penalty, while the individual penalty was deleted, leaving the dispute partly in the Revenue's favour.

Ratio Decidendi: Where import for export is accompanied by admitted misdeclaration of origin and manufacture, treaty-based restrictions on re-export govern and justify confiscation with consequential monetary penalties, but personal penalty requires separate justification.

---