Pre-clearance customs re-assessment can reject declared value for excess quantity, but Section 28 recovery and penalty may not apply.

Imported polyester knitted fabric with a small spandex content was still treated as correctly described, but the excess quantity found on examination justified rejection of the declared transaction value and re-determination on re-assessment. Because the goods were checked before clearance for home consumption, differential duty could proceed only by re-assessment under Section 17(4) of the Customs Act, not by recovery under Section 28. Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were also set aside, as confiscation was discretionary on the limited facts and penalty under Section 114A could not stand without a valid Section 28 basis.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported goods were misdeclared in description, quantity and value, and whether the declared value could be rejected and re-determined under the Customs Valuation Rules; (ii) Whether the differential duty was recoverable under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, or whether the matter was only one of re-assessment under Section 17(4) of the Customs Act, 1962; (iii) Whether confiscation of the goods with redemption fine and penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the imported goods were misdeclared in description, quantity and value, and whether the declared value could be rejected and re-determined under the Customs Valuation Rules

Analysis: The goods were described as polyester knitted fabric, and testing showed knitted fabric containing 95.5% polyester and 4.5% spandex. The presence of a small proportion of spandex did not alter the essential description of the goods as polyester knitted fabric. The quantity, however, was found to be about 7% higher than declared. That excess quantity provided a basis to doubt the declared transaction value. In those circumstances, rejection of the declared value under Rule 12 and re-determination under Rule 5 was justified.

Conclusion: The rejection of the declared value and the re-determination of duty were upheld, but only as part of re-assessment based on the actual quantity imported.

Issue (ii): Whether the differential duty was recoverable under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, or whether the matter was only one of re-assessment under Section 17(4) of the Customs Act, 1962

Analysis: The assessment process had not reached the stage of clearance for home consumption when the customs officers intervened and re-examined the goods. In that situation, the proper course was re-assessment under Section 17(4), not recovery proceedings under Section 28, which apply after clearance where duty has remained unpaid, short-paid or erroneously refunded. The reference to Section 28 in the adjudication order was therefore legally incorrect.

Conclusion: The finding that the differential duty was recovered under Section 28 was set aside, and the matter was treated as re-assessment under Section 17(4).

Issue (iii): Whether confiscation of the goods with redemption fine and penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 were sustainable

Analysis: Although the goods technically fell within the scope of Section 111(m) because the actual quantity differed from the declaration, confiscation is discretionary where goods are merely liable to confiscation. Considering the limited excess quantity and the nature of the consignment as mixed lot or stock lot goods, confiscation was not warranted. Penalty under Section 114A depended on duty being determined under Section 28, which was not the correct legal basis here; the penalty therefore fell with the rejection of the Section 28 finding.

Conclusion: The confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part: the valuation-based re-assessment was sustained, but the invocation of recovery under Section 28, together with confiscation, redemption fine and penalty, was annulled, with consequential relief to follow.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imported goods are examined before clearance, excess quantity may justify rejection of the declared value and re-assessment, but recovery under Section 28 is unavailable until post-clearance short levy proceedings arise; confiscation under Section 111(m) remains discretionary, and a penalty under Section 114A cannot survive absent a valid Section 28 determination.

---