Documentary inconsistency can prove value misdeclaration, but intermediary penalties require proof of knowledge or abetment.

Misdeclaration of export value was sustained where the invoice record showed two different values and the later disclosed correct value supported undervaluation; the absence of original documents from non-traceable importers did not displace the documentary inconsistency. On that basis, confiscation-related redemption fine was upheld, while the exporter's penalty was reduced. Penalties on the customs house agent and its partner were set aside because there was no proof that they knew of the undervaluation or knowingly abetted it, and no fraud or complicity was established against them.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the export consignment value was misdeclared on the basis of the invoices and related documents, warranting confiscation and consequential fine and penalty; (ii) whether the penalties imposed on the customs house agent and its partner were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the export consignment value was misdeclared on the basis of the invoices and related documents, warranting confiscation and consequential fine and penalty.

Analysis: The declared value in the bills of entry differed from the bank-attested invoices supplied by the exporter, and the absence of the original documents from the non-traceable importers did not displace the documentary discrepancy. The existence of two invoice values and the later disclosure of the correct value established undervaluation. In the absence of any evidence supporting a fall in value, the finding of misdeclaration was sustained. The redemption fine already imposed was not found excessive in the circumstances, while the exporter's penalty required partial reduction.

Conclusion: The finding of misdeclaration was upheld, the redemption fine was sustained, and the exporter's penalty was reduced.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalties imposed on the customs house agent and its partner were sustainable.

Analysis: There was no material to show that the customs house agent or its partner knew of the undervaluation or knowingly abetted the importers. Their conduct was found to be based on documents received through the ordinary course of work, and no fraud was established against them. In the absence of proof of complicity, the penalties could not stand.

Conclusion: The penalties imposed on the customs house agent and its partner were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The order was sustained on the issue of misdeclaration and confiscation-related fine, but modified to reduce the exporter's penalty and to delete the penalties against the customs house agent and its partner.

Ratio Decidendi: Misdeclaration of value can be established from reliable documentary inconsistency even where original documents are unavailable, but penal liability of intermediaries requires proof of knowledge or active abetment.

---