Customs undervaluation penalties require proof of participation and intent; prior payment of duty and interest defeats penal action.

Undervaluation of imported furnace oil under the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 and Section 14 of the Customs Act did not justify penalty where duty and interest had already been paid before the show-cause notice and no material showed the appellant's participation in the alleged undervaluation. With no evidence of intent to evade duty, penal action under Sections 114A and 112(a) was not sustainable, and the redemption fine also could not be upheld against the appellant.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was liable to penalty and redemption fine in relation to the alleged undervaluation of imported furnace oil when the duty and interest had already been paid before issuance of the show-cause notice and no role in the alleged undervaluation was established.

Analysis: The appeal arose from a finding of undervaluation under the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 and Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, with consequential penalties imposed under Sections 114A and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The decisive considerations were that the duty liability had been discharged along with interest before the show-cause notice and that the appellant was not shown to have participated in the alleged undervaluation, which was attributed to the supplier/importing arrangement. In the absence of material showing intention to evade duty, the basis for penal action was not made out.

Conclusion: The penalty and redemption fine were not sustainable against the appellant.

---