Misdeclaration and customs confiscation: a concessional duty claim alone does not establish false declaration of imported goods.

A claim to concessional duty under Notification No. 6/94 did not, by itself, constitute misdeclaration for confiscation under section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The imported goods were described in the bill of entry and invoice as Tetra Methyl quanidine, and the dispute was only whether they qualified as a bulk drug for concessional duty. Because the goods description matched the import documents, the ingredients of misdeclaration were not established. Confiscation and penalty were therefore not sustainable and were set aside in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported goods were liable to confiscation and penalty under section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground of misdeclaration, and whether the claim for concessional duty under Notification No. 6/94 could be treated as misdeclaration.

Analysis: The goods were described in the bill of entry and invoice as Tetra Methyl quanidine. The dispute was only whether the goods were bulk drug and therefore eligible for concessional duty under Notification No. 6/94. A claim to exemption or concessional rate of duty does not, by itself, amount to a false declaration of the goods for the purposes of section 111(m). Since the description of the goods corresponded with the import documents, the ingredients of misdeclaration were not established.

Conclusion: The confiscation and the penalty were not sustainable and were set aside, in favour of the assessee.

---