Mis-declaration permits rejection and redetermination of declared assessable value; confiscation affirmed and fines reduced on proportionality grounds.

Mis-declaration of description, quantity and value permits rejection of the declared assessable value and redetermination of value; remeasurement and supplier/export documentation were used to establish actual quantity and nature, and the declared value was unsupported by corroborative purchase evidence, so value redetermination is upheld for both gypsum boards and fabrics. Mis-declaration also attracts statutory confiscation, which is affirmed. Monetary sanctions were adjusted for proportionality on the factual matrix and documentary inconsistencies: redemption fine reduced and a specific penalty reduced while other penalties were set aside; the appeal is partly allowed only on those reductions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the declared assessable value could be rejected and the value redetermined in view of mis-declaration of goods and quantity; (ii) Whether the goods were liable for confiscation and whether penalties and redemption fine imposed should be sustained or modified.

Issue (i): Whether the declared assessable value could be rejected and the value redetermined in view of mis-declaration of goods and quantity.

Analysis: The record shows declared description and quantities differed from contents actually found and accepted remeasurement established the actual quantity and nature of the imported fabrics. Supplier/export documentation including export declarations was considered for value redetermination. The declared value was not supported by reliable corroborative purchase evidence from the importer and provisional release conditions and trade declaration discrepancies were relevant to valuation.

Conclusion: Declared assessable value is rejected and the value redetermined is upheld in respect of both gypsum boards and fabrics.

Issue (ii): Whether the goods were liable for confiscation and whether penalties and redemption fine imposed should be sustained or modified.

Analysis: The facts establish mis-declaration of description, quantity and value. Confiscation is a statutory consequence where mis-declaration is established. Penalties and redemption fine require assessment of proportionality and factual matrix. Documentary inconsistencies among shipping, invoice and supplier declarations support liability, while mitigation was appropriate in quantifying monetary sanctions.

Conclusion: Confiscation of the goods is upheld. Redemption fine and penalties are modified - redemption fine reduced to Rs.3,00,000 and penalty under Section 112(a)(ii) reduced to Rs.2,00,000; all other penalties are set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal is partly allowed only to the extent of reducing redemption fine and certain penalties; all other findings including redetermined value and confiscation are affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Mis-declaration of description, quantity or value permits rejection of declared assessable value, redetermination of value and confiscation; monetary sanctions may be adjusted for proportionality based on documentary and measurement evidence.

---