Tribunal upholds Citric Acid confiscation for mis-declaration, reduces penalty due to appellants' involvement.

The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of three consignments of Citric Acid for mis-declaration and lack of a valid license. It allowed re-export upon payment of a fine and reduced the penalty from Rs. 3,00,000 to Rs. 1,00,000 due to circumstantial evidence suggesting appellants' complicity in the mis-declaration. The appeal was rejected, affirming the confiscation but modifying the penalties imposed.

---

---

Issues:
- Confiscation of goods for mis-declaration and importing without a valid license
- Justifiability of absolute confiscation and permission for re-export
- Liability for penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act

Confiscation of Goods:
The case involved an appeal against the order of the Collector of Customs, Bombay, for the absolute confiscation of three consignments of Citric Acid declared as Dicyandiamide. The appellants had imported the goods under the belief that they were Dicyandiamide for their actual use. However, upon testing, it was revealed that the goods were actually citric acid. The appellants argued that they had not intended to import citric acid and had only ordered Dicyandiamide. The Tribunal held that mis-declaration of goods, as per the Bills of Entry, rendered the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act. The fact that citric acid required a specific license and was not required for their actual use further supported the confiscation.

Justifiability of Confiscation and Penalty:
The Tribunal considered the involvement of the appellants in the import process. While the department did not provide direct evidence of collusion between the suppliers and the importers for the mis-declaration, circumstantial evidence suggested possible complicity. The suppliers' responses to the situation indicated a lack of acknowledgment of the wrong dispatch. The Tribunal noted that the appellants had not paid the duty or retired the documents promptly, indicating a strategic approach. Despite the absence of direct proof of mala fides, the circumstances pointed towards the appellants' knowledge of the mis-declaration. The Tribunal, however, considered the request for re-export, allowing the appellants to re-export the goods on payment of a reduced fine. The penalty imposed was also reduced from Rs. 3,00,000 to Rs. 1,00,000.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the goods due to mis-declaration and lack of a valid license. It allowed re-export of the goods upon payment of a fine and reduced the penalty imposed on the appellants. The appeal was rejected with modifications to the penalties imposed, providing a chance for re-export within a specified timeframe.

---