(a) goods cleared on payment of duty after satisfaction in terms of S. 47 of the Act, cease to be "imported goods" defined in S. 2(25) of the Act;

(b) on a, true construction of S. 111, it would appear to apply only to "imported goods" and not those cleared for home consumption;

(c) on the language of S. 111(m) ["any goods that do not correspond" and not "any goods that did not correspond"] read with the heading of Section 111 indicates that it applies only to those goods in the course of import and not those already cleared;

(d) in regard to such goods cleared after payment of duty, it is only a recovery of duty not levied that is provided under S. 28 of the Act but not confiscation. There is no question of resort to Section 111 in such cases;

(e) that being so, there is no question of a levy of penalty as well under S. 112 of the Act;

(f) confiscation being illegal without or in excess- of jurisdiction, the amount paid in lieu thereof as well as the penalty are to be refunded.

4. That Section 111 of the Act itself had made no use of the expression "imported goods", is conveniently ignored. It speaks, on the contrary, of "goods brought from a place outside India". It may be that the word "import" had been defined to mean the act of bringing goods into India from a place outside India [S. 2(23) of the Act]. But that is not the only criterion laid down in the definition of the expression "imported goods". The definition goes further than mere "import". It does not include those cleared for home consumption. Once Section 111 did not use the expression "imported goods", there is no warrant to read that expression into it merely because the words "brought from a place outside India - merely descriptive of the word "goods" - tally with the definition of "import" in S. 2(23) of the Act. Nor does it mean and imply that we should read for "goods brought from a place outside India" the word "import". A definition" is meant to be the key for understanding the words used in a statute not for replacing the words actually used in a statute with the words defined, just because of the identity of the words sought to be replaced with the meaning given in the definitions.

5. If, therefore, the words "brought from a place outside India" are merely descriptive of the words "goods" they do not signify the act of bringing them in. They do not exclude even by implication goods cleared for home consumption. When once the words "imported goods" do not find a place in Section 111, it is unnecessary to specify therein further that the goods liable to confiscation .inclu