Misdeclaration under Customs law sustained penalty, but the penalty and truck redemption fine were reduced on quantum review.

Misdeclaration of goods attracted confiscability and supported penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962; the plea that the lapse arose from employee negligence did not displace the finding of violation. However, the quantum of penalty and redemption fine remained open to review, and the trucks were not offending goods per se. On that basis, the penalty under Section 112(a) was upheld but reduced, and the redemption fine on each truck was also moderated.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 and redemption fine on the conveyance required interference, and whether the quantum of such penalty and fine called for reduction.

Analysis: The goods were found to have been cleared by misdeclaration, and once such violation was accepted, confiscability and consequent penalty were attracted. The contention that the lapse was only due to employee negligence did not displace the finding of misdeclaration. At the same time, the quantum of penalty and redemption fine remained open to judicial scrutiny, and the trucks were not offending goods per se. In that view, while penalty under Section 112(a) was sustainable, the amount deserved reduction, and the redemption fine on the trucks also required moderation.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 112(a) was upheld but reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/-, and the redemption fine on each truck was reduced to Rs. 10,000/-.

---