Misdeclaration of imported goods supports confiscation and penalty, but redemption fine and penalty must remain proportionate.

Misdeclaration of imported goods in description and value was upheld where examination showed the goods did not match the Bill of Entry, the director admitted the misdeclaration in a Section 108 statement, and later mill test certificates were not linked to the consignment or import documents. On that basis, confiscation and penalty were sustained. However, the redemption fine and penalty were reduced because the original monetary sanctions were found excessive in light of the differential duty and value involved. The operative principle is that proven and admitted misdeclaration justifies confiscation and penalty, but the quantum of financial sanctions must remain proportionate to the record.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported goods were misdeclared in description and value so as to justify confiscation and penalty. (ii) Whether the redemption fine and penalty imposed required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether the imported goods were misdeclared in description and value so as to justify confiscation and penalty.

Analysis: The goods were found, on examination, not to conform to the description declared in the Bill of Entry. The director's statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 admitted misdeclaration and stated that the supplier's description was made at his instance. The later-produced mill test certificates were not shown to have been part of the import documents or linked to the impugned consignment. In these circumstances, the finding of misdeclaration was sustained, attracting confiscation and penalty.

Conclusion: The finding of misdeclaration was upheld and the liability to confiscation and penalty was affirmed.

Issue (ii): Whether the redemption fine and penalty imposed required reduction.

Analysis: Although confiscation and penal liability were confirmed, the amounts imposed were considered excessive having regard to the differential duty and the extent of differential value involved. The appropriate relief was therefore confined to moderation of the monetary consequences.

Conclusion: The redemption fine and penalty were reduced to Rs. 30,000 and Rs. 20,000 respectively.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of reduction in the quantum of redemption fine and penalty, while the findings on misdeclaration and consequent confiscability remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A proven and admitted misdeclaration under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 supports confiscation and penalty, but the monetary sanctions must remain proportionate to the duty and value differential established on the record.

---