Valuation discrepancy treated as an error, so confiscation and penalty were not justified.

Lower declared value in the bills of entry did not justify confiscation or penalty where the discrepancy with the actual transaction value was not shown to be a deliberate attempt to evade duty. Although no satisfactory explanation was offered for the wrong invoice, the duty difference was small relative to the total duty payable and the surrounding circumstances did not support an inference of intent to cheat the revenue. The valuation discrepancy was treated as an error rather than a wilful misdeclaration, so confiscation under Section 111(m) and penalty under Section 112 were not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) and whether penalty under Section 112 was sustainable on account of the lower value declared in the bills of entry.

Analysis: The declared value in the bills of entry differed from the actual transaction value, and no satisfactory explanation was offered for filing the wrong invoice. However, the duty difference was found to be small in relation to the total duty payable, and the circumstances did not support an inference that the importer intended to cheat the revenue. The discrepancy was treated as an error rather than a deliberate attempt to evade duty.

Conclusion: Confiscation and penalty were not warranted, and the importer succeeded on the issue.

---