Misdeclaration in export documents justified confiscation and penalty where the goods did not match the shipping bill.

Misdeclaration in the shipping bill was treated as established where the export documents did not match the goods actually presented for export. An explanation based on labour unrest or alleged staff misconduct did not remove the exporter's legal responsibility for the incorrect declaration. On that footing, contravention of customs and foreign trade requirements was made out, and the confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were sustained as not excessive having regard to the value of the goods.

---

---

Issues: Whether misdeclaration in the shipping bill and the resulting confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty were justified.

Analysis: The export documents did not correspond to the goods actually presented for export, and the misdeclaration stood established on the record. The Court held that the explanation based on labour unrest or alleged staff misconduct did not dilute the legal responsibility for the incorrect declaration. The contravention of the customs and foreign trade provisions was therefore made out, and the redemption fine and penalty were assessed as not excessive having regard to the value of the goods.

Conclusion: The challenge failed and the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty were upheld against the assessee.

---