Technical misdescription in import papers did not justify confiscation or penalties where IEC and registration were valid.

Confiscation of imported goods under the Customs Act was held unsustainable where the goods matched the import declaration in description, quantity and value, the importer held a valid IEC, and the omission in the Bill of Entry was only a technical clerical error. The record also showed compliance with the Batteries (Management and Handling) Rules through the requisite registration, and no deliberate misdeclaration or forged document was established. As the goods were not prohibited and the defect was capable of correction, confiscation under Section 111(d) could not stand; consequential penalties under Sections 112(a), 112(b) and 114AA also failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of the imported goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the penalties under Sections 112(a), 112(b) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 were sustainable.

Analysis: The goods were found to correspond in description, quantity and value with the import declaration except for rechargeable batteries, which were treated as lead acid rechargeable batteries requiring registration under the Batteries (Management and Handling) Rules, 2001. The record showed that the importer had obtained the requisite registration certificate from the Central Pollution Control Board, and the omission in the Bill of Entry was treated as a technical and clerical error rather than a deliberate misdeclaration. The appellant was held to be covered by the definition of importer under Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the use of a valid IEC by the filing importer negatived the allegation of violation of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993. The finding of forged IEC was not accepted. Since the goods were not prohibited and the defect was capable of correction, confiscation under Section 111(d) could not be sustained. Penalties under Section 112 could not survive without a valid confiscation, and Section 114AA was held inapplicable because there was no intentional use of a false document, statement or declaration.

Conclusion: The confiscation and the penalties were not sustainable and were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the appellant obtained complete relief against confiscation and penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the import is otherwise lawful, the importer holds a valid IEC, and the alleged defect is only a technical misdescription without intentional falsity, confiscation under Section 111(d) and consequential penalties, including under Section 114AA, cannot be sustained.

---