Deliberate import undervaluation supports confiscation consequences and separate penalties where a managing partner directly participates in misdeclaration.

Deliberate undervaluation and misdeclaration of imported goods, established through reliable documentary and electronic records and corroborated by the managing partner's statement, render the goods liable to confiscation and support redemption fine and penalties. Subsequent payment and acceptance of differential duty after detection do not undo the completed contravention, although they may mitigate penalty quantum. A partnership firm and its managing partner may be separately penalised where the partner directly participated in the misdeclaration rather than being liable only vicariously. The notes state that redemption fine and penalties on both the importer and managing partner were sustainable, with no waiver or reduction warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether redemption fine and penalties for deliberate undervaluation and misdeclaration of imported goods were sustainable, including the separate penalty imposed on the managing partner.

Analysis: Reliable documentary and electronic records, corroborated by the managing partner's statement, established that the declared import value was intentionally understated. Payment and acceptance of differential duty after detection did not erase the completed contravention; it could only operate as a mitigating factor in fixing quantum. Deliberate misdeclaration rendering goods liable to confiscation also attracted penalty. A partnership firm and its managing partner may each be penalised where the partner's own acts and direct involvement contributed to the misdeclaration, rather than liability being merely vicarious.

Conclusion: Redemption fine and the penalties imposed on both the importer and its managing partner were legally sustainable; no waiver or reduction was warranted.

---