Imported goods did not correspond to the description in the Bill...

Imported goods did not correspond to the description in the Bill of Entry, with a discrepancy in thickness. The transaction value was correctly rejected u/r 12 due to reasonable doubt about its truth and accuracy. With no imports of identical goods, the value was rightly determined u/r 5. Confiscation of goods u/s 111(m) and redemption fine u/s 125 were justified as the appellant intentionally misdeclared the nature of goods to evade duty. Penalties u/ss 114AA and 112 were correctly imposed. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's order, dismissing the appeal.

---