Manifest discrepancy alone does not justify customs penalty where the goods are not contraband and no aggravating circumstances exist.

A mere discrepancy between the number of packages shown in the service bill of lading and the import manifest did not, by itself, justify penalty under the Customs Act. The goods were re-imported normal goods, cleared without payment of duty, and were not contraband; in the absence of aggravating circumstances, the mistaken short-mention in the manifest was treated as an insufficient basis for penal action. Penalty was therefore not warranted and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty was sustainable for the short-mention of packages in the import manifest and for the consequential alleged contravention under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The goods were re-imported normal goods, ultimately cleared without payment of duty. The discrepancy in the number of packages in the service bill of lading and the import manifest could have been noticed and corrected before filing the IGM, but the mistake by itself did not justify penalty. The goods were not contraband, and the circumstances did not call for penal action.

Conclusion: Penalty was not warranted and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere mistake in manifest particulars, without involvement of contraband goods or other aggravating circumstances, does not by itself justify imposition of penalty.

---