Misdeclaration under import licence upheld where Cassia was treated as distinct from Cinnamon, sustaining confiscation and redemption fine.

Cassia was treated as a distinct commodity from Cinnamon for import-licence purposes because the two are derived from different trees and were classified separately under the Import and Export Policy. Importing Cassia against a licence for Cinnamon therefore amounted to misdeclaration, and the licence could not validly cover the goods imported, justifying confiscation. The redemption fine was also sustained because no material showed that the amount fixed was excessive and the statutory ceiling under Section 125 of the Customs Act was not shown to have been breached.

---

---

Issues: Whether Cassia could be treated as Cinnamon for the purpose of the import licence, and whether the confiscation of the goods with redemption fine was justified.

Analysis: Cassia and Cinnamon were held to be derived from different trees and to be distinct commodities, even if similar in nature. The Import and Export Policy treated them as separate items. The import of Cassia against a licence for Cinnamon therefore amounted to misdeclaration and the licence could not validly cover the goods imported. On the question of redemption fine, no material was shown to establish that the fine fixed was excessive, and the statutory ceiling under Section 125 of the Customs Act was not shown to have been crossed.

Conclusion: The confiscation was upheld and no reduction in redemption fine was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the order sustaining confiscation with redemption fine remained in force.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods imported under a licence must conform to the licensed description, and where the imported article is a distinct commodity from the licensed item, misdeclaration justifies confiscation and the redemption fine will not be interfered with absent proof of excessiveness.

---