Misdeclaration of export goods as Jasmine Sambac oil upheld where testing and admission showed restricted sandalwood oil.

Export goods tested as sandalwood oil, not the declared Jasmine Sambac oil, and the appellant's own admission was treated as substantive evidence of misdeclaration. Because the record did not support any bona fide mistake and no commercial documents were produced to verify genuine dealings in the declared goods, the Tribunal upheld the finding of contravention of the export restriction on sandalwood oil. Confiscation, redemption fine, penalty and drawback demand were therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the export of essential oil was liable to confiscation and penalty on the ground that the goods were misdeclared as Jasmine Sambac oil though the sample tested as sandalwood oil, a restricted export item.

Analysis: The export consignment was found, on chemical examination and on the appellant's own acknowledgment, to contain sandalwood oil instead of the declared Jasmine Sambac oil. The record did not show any material to support the plea of inadvertent mistake or bona fide error. The admission was treated as substantive evidence of contravention, and the Tribunal noted that admissions need no further proof. The appellant also failed to produce supporting commercial records to establish bona fide dealing in the declared goods. The departmental finding of violation of the export restriction on sandalwood oil was therefore upheld, along with the consequential confiscation, redemption fine, penalty and drawback demand.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalties were justified and the challenge to the order failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where export goods are found, on test and admission, to be different from the declared description and the record does not establish bona fide mistake, the misdeclaration amounts to contravention warranting confiscation and penalty.

---