WPC licence absence alone does not bar import, but false goods description can still justify confiscation and penalty.

Imported wireless data devices were treated as freely importable, so the absence of a WPC licence did not by itself justify confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The reference in section 3 of the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 was read as governing possession of wireless apparatus, not as creating an import prohibition. However, describing the goods as a "Mobile Phone" was held to be a deliberate misdeclaration because the product was not a mobile phone and had no voice communication facility. Confiscation under section 111(m) and penalty under section 112(a) were sustained, while the redemption fine was reduced.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported wireless data device required a WPC licence and was liable to confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 for want of such licence; (ii) Whether describing the goods as "Mobile Phone" constituted deliberate misdeclaration justifying confiscation under section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue (i): Whether the imported wireless data device required a WPC licence and was liable to confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 for want of such licence.

Analysis: The imported goods were held to be freely importable, and the reference in section 3 of the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 was treated as dealing with possession of wireless apparatus and not as creating an import prohibition enforceable through section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal followed the view that, where the import policy does not restrict the goods, absence of a WPC licence does not by itself justify confiscation under section 111(d).

Conclusion: The goods were not liable to confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the WPC licence issue; the Revenue's challenge on this ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether describing the goods as "Mobile Phone" constituted deliberate misdeclaration justifying confiscation under section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The Tribunal accepted that the bill of entry description did not match the product catalogue or invoice and that the goods were not mobile phones, as there was no voice communication facility. It held that the discrepancy was not a mere classification error but a deliberate misdeclaration, and therefore the confiscation and penalty were warranted. At the same time, the Tribunal considered the redemption fine excessive and reduced it.

Conclusion: Confiscation under section 111(m) and penalty under section 112(a) were sustained, but the redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 10,00,000/-.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the importer's appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of reduction of redemption fine while the confiscation and penalty were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere absence of a WPC licence does not attract confiscation under section 111(d) where the goods are freely importable, but a false description of the goods in the import declaration amounts to deliberate misdeclaration warranting confiscation and penalty.

---