Intentional misdeclaration in customs documents can sustain penalty where the record shows deliberate concealment of the true goods description.

Intentional misdeclaration of the nature of goods in bills of entry can justify penalty under Section 112A of the Customs Act where the record shows deliberate concealment of the correct description and classification. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant had instructed the supplier not to reflect the true description and classification in the proforma invoice, supporting a finding of intentional misdeclaration. On that factual basis, the Tribunal's penalty order was held to be warranted and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 112A of the Customs Act was justified for intentional misdeclaration of the nature of the goods in the bills of entry.

Analysis: The record showed that the appellant had intentionally misdeclared the nature of the goods and had instructed the supplier not to indicate the correct description and classification in the proforma invoice. On that basis, the Tribunal's order imposing penalty was found to be warranted.

Conclusion: The penalty was upheld and the challenge failed.

---