Misdeclaration of imported plastic scrap justified reconsideration of penalty, even though confiscation was unavailable after release of goods.

Import declared as plastic scrap was found to include a substantial quantity of higher-value acrylic plastic scrap, and the declared description, the importer's business profile, and surrounding circumstances supported an inference of misdeclaration. Confiscation was not ordered because the goods had already been released and were not shown to be available, but the finding negating misdeclaration was set aside and penal liability was left open for consideration under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.

---

---

Issues: Whether the import of plastic scrap was misdeclared so as to warrant interference with the order declining confiscation and requiring consideration of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The imported goods were declared as plastic scrap or PVC tubing scrap, but examination disclosed a substantial quantity of acrylic plastic scrap of higher value. The declared description, the nature of the importer's business, and the surrounding circumstances were treated as inconsistent with the conclusion that there was no intent to misdeclare. Confiscation could not be ordered because the goods had already been released and were not shown to be available, but the question of penal liability remained open for consideration.

Conclusion: The finding negating misdeclaration was set aside, and the Commissioner was directed to consider the importer's liability to penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 according to law.

---