Suppression-based customs penalty fails where disputed valuation foundation is unsustainable and no penal ingredient is proved.

Penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act was unsustainable because the alleged suppression rested on omission to add 1% landing charges on demurrage to assessable value. Where the valuation basis itself was doubtful and demurrage charges were already considered outside the proper valuation framework under Section 14, failure to include a disputed notional component could not amount to suppression attracting penal consequences. On the facts, duty had been paid on the basis understood by the assessee, and the ingredient required for penalty was not established. The penalty was therefore set aside and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable where the demand was founded on non-inclusion of 1% landing charges on demurrage charges in the assessable value for customs valuation.

Analysis: The penalty was premised on the allegation that the appellant suppressed material facts by not adding 1% landing charges on demurrage while computing assessable value. The valuation basis itself was doubtful because the exclusion/inclusion of demurrage had already been held to be beyond the scope of the charging and valuation framework under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. Once demurrage charges themselves could not validly be treated as includible for valuation, failure to add a notional 1% amount on such demurrage could not be treated as suppression warranting penal consequences. In the factual matrix, the appellant had already paid duty on the amounts as understood by it, and the penal ingredient necessary for Section 114A was not made out.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 was held not sustainable and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the penalty demand was annulled, with consequential relief following as a result of the setting aside of the impugned order.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the valuation foundation for duty itself is not legally sustainable, a penalty for suppression cannot be imposed for omission to include a disputed notional component in assessable value.

---