Excess manifested goods are liable to confiscation, and later post-clearance evidence cannot undo that liability.

Excess imported goods found beyond the manifested quantity are liable to confiscation under the Customs Act read with the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, and the importer must show acceptable contemporaneous material to displace that liability. Post-clearance survey materials and a later port trust certificate, not properly produced as additional evidence before the original authority, could not be relied on at the appellate stage. A later claim of shortage or pilferage did not defeat the confiscation or the nominal penalty. The confiscation order and penalty were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the excess quantity of dunpeas found beyond the manifested quantity was liable to confiscation; (ii) whether post-clearance survey materials and the port trust certificate could be relied upon at the appellate stage as additional evidence; (iii) whether the alleged shortage in cargo could defeat the confiscation and penalty imposed.

Issue (i): whether the excess quantity of dunpeas found beyond the manifested quantity was liable to confiscation.

Analysis: The goods were imported in excess of the manifested quantity and were covered by confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962 read with the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The appellants did not establish any acceptable contemporaneous material showing that the excess arose from a shortage in the cargo already cleared. The manifest position remained uncorrected.

Conclusion: The excess goods were correctly held liable to confiscation.

Issue (ii): whether post-clearance survey materials and the port trust certificate could be relied upon at the appellate stage as additional evidence.

Analysis: The survey relied upon was conducted after clearance and without the association of Customs officers. The port trust certificate was also obtained later and was not produced before the original authority through a proper application for admission of additional evidence. Such materials could not be accepted to upset the original finding.

Conclusion: The post-clearance materials were not admissible for appellate consideration.

Issue (iii): whether the alleged shortage in cargo could defeat the confiscation and penalty imposed.

Analysis: Any shortage, loss, or pilferage, if at all, ought to have been raised immediately after clearance or pursued through an appropriate refund or insurance claim. A later claim of shortage could not displace the liability attached to excess manifested goods, and the nominal penalty also called for no interference.

Conclusion: The alleged shortage did not warrant interference with the confiscation or penalty.

Final Conclusion: The order of confiscation and the nominal penalty were sustained, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Excess goods found beyond the manifested quantity are liable to confiscation, and post-clearance materials not properly brought on record cannot be used to negate that liability.

---