Admitted misdeclaration in customs imports justifies rejection of declared value, reassessment, confiscation and penalty.

Admitted misdeclaration in the quantity, description and value of imported goods justified rejection of the declared value and reassessment of duty under the Customs Valuation Rules. The importer's proprietor had accepted the misdeclaration and reassessment in an un-retracted Section 108 statement, and the importer remained primarily responsible in self-assessment to declare the correct quantity, description and assessable value. In the absence of contemporary data of identical goods, valuation based on similar goods under Rule 5 after rejection under Rule 12 was upheld. The same misdeclaration also supported confiscation, redemption fine and penalty under the Customs Act.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared value and description of the imported goods could be rejected on the basis of admitted misdeclaration, and whether confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were sustainable.

Analysis: The imported goods were found to have discrepancies in quantity, description and valuation. The importer's proprietor made a statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 admitting the misdeclaration, accepting the reassessment and agreeing to pay the differential duty. The statement was not retracted. In self-assessment, the importer bears the primary responsibility to declare the true quantity, description and assessable value under Section 46(4) read with Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. Since contemporary data of identical goods was unavailable, re-determination of value on the basis of similar goods under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 was upheld after rejection of the declared value under Rule 12 of those Rules. The admitted misdeclaration also justified confiscation under Sections 111(l) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposition of penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Conclusion: The rejection of the declared value, reassessment of duty, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were upheld against the assessee.

---