Customs misdeclaration over agent payments supports confiscation where the bill of entry omits a payable commission amount.

Non-disclosure in the bill of entry of an amount payable to a local indenting agent justified inclusion in assessable value where the importer could not prove any identifiable split between commission, technical advice and installation charges. The stated reasoning treats the entire amount as commission and finds that a specific column existed for disclosure of commission payable, so omission of that figure amounted to misdeclaration. On that basis, confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 was upheld, and the challenge to inclusion, confiscation and redemption fine failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amount payable to the indenting agent was required to be included in the assessable value and whether confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 was justified for non-disclosure of the true amount payable.

Analysis: The appellants failed to substantiate that the 20% payment comprised distinct elements of commission, technical advice and installation charges in any identifiable proportion. The finding that the entire amount was booked as commission and that the bill of entry did not correctly disclose the amount payable to the local agent remained unshaken. Even on the appellants' own case, the claimed post-import character of part of the payment did not justify omission of disclosure in the bill of entry where a specific column existed for commission payable to the local agent. In these circumstances, the non-disclosure amounted to misdeclaration and supported confiscation.

Conclusion: Inclusion of the disputed amount in the assessable value and confiscation under Section 111(m) were upheld; the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were rejected and the orders of inclusion in assessable value, confiscation and redemption fine were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the importer fails to disclose a payable amount in the bill of entry despite a specific column for such disclosure, and cannot substantiate any claimed apportionment of the payment, confiscation for misdeclaration is justified.

---