Misdeclaration in export goods sustained confiscation, while penalty relief was granted after moderation of excessive penalties.

Misdeclaration of exported polyester blended yarn as goods made from virgin polyester fibre, where the record and officers' statements supported use of waste fibre, sustained confiscation despite an incorrect sub-clause reference in the notice being treated as a typographical error. The export under the DEEC scheme involved a duty-linked advantage, justifying confiscation and maintenance of redemption fine. However, the penalty amounts imposed on the exporter and its Managing Director were considered excessive and were reduced. The result was limited relief confined to penalty reduction, with confiscation and redemption fine remaining intact.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the exported polyester blended yarn was liable to confiscation on the footing that it had been manufactured from waste fibre and was misdeclared as yarn made from virgin polyester fibre; (ii) whether the redemption fine and penalties imposed on the exporter and its Managing Director called for interference.

Issue (i): whether the exported polyester blended yarn was liable to confiscation on the footing that it had been manufactured from waste fibre and was misdeclared as yarn made from virgin polyester fibre;

Analysis: The material on record, including the test report and the statements of the appellant's own officers, supported the conclusion that waste fibre had been used in manufacture. The challenge to the expert evidence was not sufficient to displace the finding, and the mention of the wrong sub-clause in the notice was treated as a typographical error that did not vitiate the proceedings because the substance of the allegation was clear.

Conclusion: The goods were held liable to confiscation and the objection to confiscability failed.

Issue (ii): whether the redemption fine and penalties imposed on the exporter and its Managing Director called for interference.

Analysis: The export was attempted under the DEEC scheme and the misdeclaration had a direct duty-linked advantage, justifying confiscation and a substantial redemption fine. At the same time, the penalty amounts were considered excessive in the circumstances and were reduced.

Conclusion: The redemption fine was maintained, while the penalties were reduced.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only to the limited extent of reduction in penalties, and the finding of confiscation with redemption fine was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A clear misdeclaration in export goods, supported by reliable evidence and admissions, can sustain confiscation despite an incidental error in citation, and penalties may be moderated where the circumstances justify partial relief.

---