Declared value in instalment imports cannot prove misdeclaration absent fresh evidence; confiscation and penalty were quashed.

Declared value of imported bearings supplied under an instalment contract could vary with the market price at the time of each import, and the same value adopted for the earlier shipment did not by itself prove deliberate misdeclaration for the second instalment. In the absence of fresh material or a cogent reason, a later adjudication could not depart from an earlier determination on identical facts. Procedural objections to reliance on an undisclosed invoice and an unsupported profit margin were noted, but no remand was needed because confiscation itself could not be sustained. The finding of deliberate misdeclaration was set aside and the confiscation and penalty were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared value of the second instalment of imported bearings amounted to deliberate misdeclaration so as to justify confiscation and penalty, and whether the adjudication could depart from the earlier determination on identical facts.

Analysis: The goods formed part of a contract for delivery in instalments, and the assessable value for each instalment could vary with the market price at the time of import. The declared value for the second instalment was the same as that adopted for the earlier shipment, and no fresh material or cogent reason was shown to support a contrary finding of deliberate misdeclaration. The earlier adjudication on the same transaction had not imposed confiscation or penalty, and a later contrary view on identical allegations was not justified in the absence of new facts or change in law. The Court also noted the procedural complaints regarding reliance on an invoice not supplied and on an unsupported profit margin, but found that a remand was unnecessary once confiscation itself could not stand.

Conclusion: The finding of deliberate misdeclaration was set aside, and the confiscation and penalty were quashed.

---