Customs mis-declaration findings upheld; confiscation sustained, while redemption fine and penalty were further reduced on the facts.

A factual finding of mis-declaration in customs valuation was upheld where the record showed a substantial discrepancy between the declared and assessed value of imported goods, and no basis was found to interfere with confiscation. The revisional authority's partial relief by reducing redemption fine and penalty was sustained and further moderated, but the core mis-declaration finding remained intact. The request for re-export was rejected because the provision relied upon was held inapplicable on the facts. The operative effect was limited relief on the quantum of fine and penalty, without disturbing the substantive customs findings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the finding of mis-declaration of value of imported goods, leading to confiscation and imposition of redemption fine and penalty, called for interference. (ii) Whether permission for re-export of the goods was available on the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether the finding of mis-declaration of value of imported goods, leading to confiscation and imposition of redemption fine and penalty, called for interference.

Analysis: The authorities had examined the material on record and concluded that there was a substantial discrepancy between the declared value and the assessed value of the goods. The valuation dispute was considered on facts, and the revisional authority had already granted partial relief by reducing the redemption fine and penalty. No ground was made out for upsetting the factual determination of mis-declaration.

Conclusion: The finding of mis-declaration was upheld and the confiscation was not interfered with, though the fine and penalty were further reduced.

Issue (ii): Whether permission for re-export of the goods was available on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The request for re-export was considered and rejected by the authorities, as the provision relied upon was found inapplicable to the facts.

Conclusion: The prayer for re-export was rightly rejected.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded only to the limited extent of further reduction of redemption fine and penalty, while the substantive findings on mis-declaration and rejection of re-export were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A factual finding of mis-declaration in customs valuation will not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction when it is supported by the record, though the quantum of redemption fine and penalty may be moderated on the facts of the case.

---