Customs penalty requires proof of deliberate misdeclaration; voluntary acceptance of revised value was insufficient here.

Confiscatory and penal consequences under the Customs Act were found unsustainable where enhanced value rested only on the importer's voluntary statement and no deliberate undervaluation or misdeclaration was established. The importer had declared the goods on the supplier's description and accepted the revised value when the size discrepancy was noticed, but the record did not contain material evidence supporting a finding of intentional suppression. On those facts, the legal basis for redemption fine and penalty was not made out, and both were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confirmation of reduced redemption fine and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962 could be sustained where the enhancement of value rested on the importer's voluntary statement and there was no deliberate undervaluation or misdeclaration established.

Analysis: The importer had filed the bill of entry on the basis of the supplier's description and had accepted the enhanced value when the discrepancy in size was noticed. The record showed that the finding of deliberate undervaluation or misdeclaration was not supported by material evidence, and the reliance placed on the importer's statement did not justify confiscation or penal consequences in the facts of the case. In these circumstances, the legal basis for applying the confiscatory and penal provisions was not made out.

Conclusion: The confirmation of redemption fine and penalty was not sustainable and was set aside.

---