Disclosure and departmental approval defeated confiscation and penalty where clearances were made on an approved classification basis.

Disclosure of material facts to the department, a departmental reply that steam use in heating the solution was not objectionable, filing of the classification list claiming exemption, and clearance of goods in accordance with departmental approval meant the removals could not be treated as warranting penal consequences. On those undisputed facts, confiscation and penalty were not sustainable. The challenge to the appellate order therefore failed, as the facts did not justify treating the clearances as an offence attracting confiscation or penalty.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty were justified in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The respondents had disclosed the material facts to the department, obtained a reply that use of steam in heating the solution would not be objectionable, filed their classification list claiming exemption under the relevant notifications, and cleared the goods in accordance with the approval granted by the department. On these undisputed facts, the removal of goods could not be treated as warranting penal consequences, and the order of confiscation and penalty was not sustainable.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty were unjustified and the challenge to the appellate order failed.

---