Customs concealment and non-declaration sustained absolute confiscation despite reliance on an import notification.

Non-declaration of imported silver, use of the Green Channel, and concealment were treated as misdeclaration supporting confiscation under customs law. The import notification relied upon did not displace the established treatment of concealed or undeclared goods, so the claimed benefit could not defeat absolute confiscation on these facts. In writ jurisdiction, the factual finding of concealment was not shown to be illegal or improper, and the challenge to the order restoring absolute confiscation therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to relief against the order restoring absolute confiscation of 100 kgs. of silver, and whether the claimed benefit of the import notification could be invoked despite non-declaration and concealment.

Analysis: The facts found by the customs authorities showed that the petitioner had not declared the silver, had passed through the Green Channel meant for passengers without dutiable goods, and had thereby committed misdeclaration and non-declaration amounting to concealment. The notification relied upon contemplated that cases of non-declaration and concealment would be dealt with as before, so confiscation could still follow. In writ jurisdiction, the factual finding of concealment was not shown to be illegal or improper, and the contention that the petitioner could claim the benefit of the notification as a mere carrier was not required to be decided in view of those findings.

Conclusion: The challenge to the confiscation order failed, and the impugned order restoring absolute confiscation was upheld.

---