Identity of imported goods confirmed by documents and marks; minor description differences could not support confiscation or penalty.

Imported goods were found to match the import documents, shipping marks and seizure list, and corroborating exporter confirmation supported the explanation for the origin-mark discrepancy. Minor differences in package description and the reference to Hong Kong instead of China were insufficient to displace the identity of the goods, so confiscation could not be sustained on the facts. Once the foundation for confiscation failed, the penalty also lacked legal basis because the department had not established illicit importation. The goods were directed to be released and the penalty order was annulled.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the confiscation of the seized goods was in accordance with law; (ii) Whether the penalty imposed on the appellant was sustainable in law.

Issue (i): Whether the confiscation of the seized goods was in accordance with law.

Analysis: The description of the goods in the import documents, the shipping marks, and the seizure list substantially tallied. The discrepancies relied upon by the adjudicating authority, namely the fuller description on the packages and the reference to Hong Kong as against China, were not sufficient to dislodge the identity of the goods. The exporter's confirmation supported the explanation that the goods were manufactured in China though marked as made in Hong Kong. The circumstances also showed that the goods had been cleared by Calcutta Customs, and the overall probabilities supported the appellant's case that the seized goods were the same goods covered by the import documents. The seizure and confiscation, therefore, could not be sustained on the facts.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the goods was not in accordance with law and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed on the appellant was sustainable in law.

Analysis: Since the foundation for confiscation failed, the basis for the penalty also disappeared. On the facts found, the appellant had established lawful import and the department's case of illicit importation was not made out.

Conclusion: The penalty was not in accordance with law and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the goods were directed to be released in favour of the appellant, and the penalty order was annulled.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the identity of imported goods is established on the basis of import documents, shipping marks, surrounding circumstances, and corroborating exporter confirmation, minor descriptive discrepancies and an unsupported origin-mark discrepancy do not justify confiscation or penalty.

---