Measurement-based excess in marble slab declarations did not justify confiscation-linked penalty absent proof of deliberate mis-declaration.

Excess declared area in marble slabs, when attributable to Customs' measurement methodology and only marginal in nature, did not by itself establish mis-declaration or intent to evade duty. The assessee had accepted the measurement report and agreed to pay differential duty without contemporaneous protest, and the record showed no knowingly false declaration, suppression, or dishonest intent. Because the ingredients for confiscation were not proved, redemption fine and penalty under the Customs Act were not legally sustainable and were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether redemption fine and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962 were sustainable where the excess surface area of marble slabs arose from the measurement methodology adopted by Customs and the appellant was not contesting the differential duty.

Analysis: The appellant had accepted the measurement report and agreed to pay the differential duty without any contemporaneous protest, and a later attempt to resile from that acceptance was not accepted. The excess area was found to be marginal and attributable at least in part to the method of measuring irregular and broken slabs by taking maximum length and maximum breadth. The existence of a departmental tolerance for marble slab measurements reflected that some variation was inherent in the commodity. On these facts, the record did not show any knowingly false declaration, suppression, or dishonest intent to evade duty. The ingredients necessary for confiscation and penalty were therefore not established.

Conclusion: Redemption fine and penalty were not legally sustainable and were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the disputed excess was treated as a measurement-related variation rather than a penal mis-declaration, leaving no basis for confiscation-linked fine or penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the excess in declared quantity is attributable to measurement methodology and there is no evidence of deliberate mis-declaration or intent to evade duty, confiscation and penalty provisions predicated on suppression or false declaration are not attracted.

---