Mis-declaration in customs valuation can justify confiscation and penalty, but redemption fine must remain proportionate to duty impact.

Mis-declaration of imported goods can arise where licence fee or royalty is omitted from the assessable value, and such omission may support confiscation under section 111(m) of the Customs Act and penalty under section 112(a), with valuation determined under rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. Where confiscation and penalty are otherwise justified, redemption fine and penalty should still be kept proportionate to the actual duty impact and surrounding circumstances, and excessive amounts may be reduced when the enhanced duty liability is limited.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported goods were liable to confiscation and penalty on the ground of mis-declaration of value by omission to include licence fee or royalty in the assessable value. (ii) Whether the redemption fine and penalty required reduction in view of the duty liability arising from enhancement of value.

Issue (i): Whether the imported goods were liable to confiscation and penalty on the ground of mis-declaration of value by omission to include licence fee or royalty in the assessable value.

Analysis: The declared value was found inconsistent with the licence arrangement and the appellant could not produce evidence showing that the courier had been instructed to withhold the consignment for filing a regular bill of entry. The omission to include the licence fee in the assessable value therefore supported the charge of mis-declaration. On that basis, confiscation under section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 were held sustainable, with valuation governed by rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007.

Conclusion: The goods were rightly confiscated and the imposition of penalty was justified.

Issue (ii): Whether the redemption fine and penalty required reduction in view of the duty liability arising from enhancement of value.

Analysis: Although confiscation and penalty were upheld, the duty differential resulting from the enhanced assessable value was limited. Considering that the duty impact was only Rs. 1,31,305/-, the higher amounts imposed below were found excessive and warranted moderation.

Conclusion: The redemption fine and penalty were reduced.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of reduction in redemption fine and penalty, while the findings of mis-declaration, confiscation, and liability to penalty were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imported goods are mis-declared by omission of material value components from the assessable value, confiscation and penalty may be sustained, but the quantum of redemption fine and penalty must be proportionate to the duty effect and surrounding circumstances.

---