Misdeclaration and undervaluation can sustain confiscation despite prior clearance, and waiver of notice may satisfy customs procedure.

Imported goods found misdeclared and undervalued remained liable to confiscation notwithstanding prior clearance, because assessment under clearance provisions did not bar action under customs confiscation law where import was improper. The importer's waiver of written show-cause notice, participation in hearing, and confrontation with the material relied on satisfied the statutory notice requirement, so no breach of natural justice was made out. Admissions, contemporaneous quotation evidence, and surrounding circumstances supported rejection of the declared invoice value, enhancement of assessable value, and the consequent confiscation and penalty.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the preventive customs authority had jurisdiction to adjudicate confiscation proceedings after the goods had been assessed and cleared; (ii) whether waiver of written show-cause notice and the manner in which statements and evidence were used vitiated the order for breach of natural justice; (iii) whether the enhancement of assessable value and consequential confiscation and penalty were justified on the evidence of misdeclaration and undervaluation.

Issue (i): Whether the preventive customs authority had jurisdiction to adjudicate confiscation proceedings after the goods had been assessed and cleared.

Analysis: The goods were found to have been imported with deliberate suppression of value and were liable to confiscation. Clearance under Section 47 did not bar action under the confiscation provisions where the import itself was improper. The earlier assessment did not oust the jurisdiction of a competent officer to proceed under the customs law in respect of improperly imported goods.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection was rejected and the adjudicating authority's assumption of jurisdiction was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether waiver of written show-cause notice and the manner in which statements and evidence were used vitiated the order for breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The importer had waived written show-cause notice and participated in personal hearing with full knowledge of the allegations. The relevant material relied upon for valuation was confronted to the party, and the statements were voluntary and not retracted. In these circumstances, the requirements of Section 124 were treated as satisfied and no denial of natural justice was found.

Conclusion: The challenge based on want of notice and breach of natural justice failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the enhancement of assessable value and consequential confiscation and penalty were justified on the evidence of misdeclaration and undervaluation.

Analysis: The importer admitted that the declared value was not correct and accepted a higher unit price. The contemporaneous quotation, admissions, and surrounding circumstances supported the finding of undervaluation. On that basis, the declared invoice value was rejected, the assessable value was enhanced, and confiscation and penalty followed under the customs provisions.

Conclusion: The valuation adopted by the adjudicating authority was sustained, along with the confiscation and penalty.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in full, and the customs order was affirmed in substance on jurisdiction, valuation, confiscation, and penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imported goods are found to be misdeclared and undervalued on the basis of admissions and supporting evidence, prior clearance under Section 47 does not bar confiscation proceedings, and a waiver of written notice with participation in hearing satisfies the statutory notice requirement.

---