Bona fide declaration intent defeats confiscation of passenger goods, but undeclared foreign exchange remains liable under aggregate declaration rules.

Confiscation of passenger goods was found unsustainable where the surrounding facts showed a bona fide intention to declare the video camera, colour television and video cassettes before interception; those items were directed to be released for re-export. By contrast, confiscation of Deutsche Mark 1,400 was upheld because the declaration obligation applied to the aggregate foreign exchange carried, the passenger's explanation of a counting mistake was rejected, and the threshold exemption was not satisfied. Redemption on payment of fine was allowed for the currency, and the penalty was reduced. The ruling turns on bona fide intention for declaration of goods and strict compliance with foreign exchange declaration requirements.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the confiscation of the video camera, colour television and video cassettes was lawful. (ii) Whether the confiscation of Deutsche Mark 1,400 was lawful and what consequential relief should follow.

Issue (i): Whether the confiscation of the video camera, colour television and video cassettes was lawful.

Analysis: The statement of the passenger showed that he intended to declare the articles but was stopped before he could complete the declaration. The circumstances indicated that the items were carried for personal and intended family use and that there was no intention to import them clandestinely. The reasoning accepted the principle that where bona fide intention is evident from the surrounding facts, confiscation is not justified merely because the goods were liable to be detained.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the video camera, colour television and video cassettes was not sustainable, and their release with permission to re-export was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the confiscation of Deutsche Mark 1,400 was lawful and what consequential relief should follow.

Analysis: The explanation of a counting mistake was rejected because the passenger's own statement showed awareness of the total foreign exchange carried and the segregation of the balance amount for expenses. The declaration requirement was held to apply to the aggregate foreign exchange brought in, and the aggregate value exceeded the exempted threshold. On that basis, the non-declaration of the currency was not treated as an innocent omission.

Conclusion: The confiscation of Deutsche Mark 1,400 was upheld, but the passenger was granted redemption on payment of fine, with the penalty reduced.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part: the non-monetary items were directed to be released for re-export, while the foreign currency confiscation was maintained with modified redemption terms and reduced penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Confiscation is not warranted where the surrounding circumstances show bona fide intention to declare goods before interception, but undeclared foreign exchange remains liable where the declaration obligation applies to the aggregate amount carried and the threshold exemption is not satisfied.

---