Deliberate misdeclaration in car import documents justified absolute confiscation, while the importer's penalty was reduced on the facts.

Deliberate misdeclaration of a car's year of manufacture and value, supported by fictitious import documents and contrary inquiry findings, justified absolute confiscation because the vehicle was not the declared 1988 model and did not satisfy the claimed foreign-use requirement. The import was treated as a false-paper attempt to clear goods otherwise not permissible under the import control requirements. The importer's conduct remained culpable, but the personal penalty was moderated on the facts, with the quantum reduced as excessive in the circumstances while the finding of liability was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported car was liable to absolute confiscation for misdeclaration of its year of manufacture and value and for import in contravention of the applicable import control requirements; (ii) Whether the personal penalty imposed on the importer required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether the imported car was liable to absolute confiscation for misdeclaration of its year of manufacture and value and for import in contravention of the applicable import control requirements.

Analysis: The declared documents were found unreliable and fictitious on enquiry. The evidence showed that the vehicle was of 1991 make, had been sold in Dubai in July 1991, and was not the 1988 model with the declared value. The importer's own statement supported the finding that the car had been purchased only in July 1991 and could not have satisfied the claimed one-year foreign use requirement. The circumstances established deliberate misdeclaration and an attempted clearance by false papers for an import not otherwise permissible.

Conclusion: The car was rightly held liable to absolute confiscation.

Issue (ii): Whether the personal penalty imposed on the importer required reduction.

Analysis: Although the misconduct warranted penalty, the overall circumstances justified some moderation once absolute confiscation had been sustained. The importer's conduct remained culpable, but the quantum imposed was considered excessive in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The penalty was reduced to Rs. 1,25,000, and the rest of the penalty order was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation was upheld, but the penalty was interfered with to the limited extent of reducing its quantum.

Ratio Decidendi: Deliberate misdeclaration supported by fictitious import documents and contrary inquiry findings justifies absolute confiscation, while the penalty may be moderated on the facts without disturbing the finding of liability.

---