https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91256 The Tribunal set aside the confiscation, differential duty demand, and penalties imposed on the appellants for misdeclaration of goods and value leading to duty evasion. It held that the Customs House practice allowed for splitting the value of goods, and since the full value was available to the Revenue, there was no justification for the penalties. The Tribunal found no wilful misdeclaration and deemed the confiscation and differential duty demand unjust, stating that Section 125 of the Customs Act did not apply in this case. It allowed the appeals and provided consequential relief to the appellants. en-us Fri, 14 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Oct 2011 18:19:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91256 The Tribunal set aside the confiscation, differential duty demand, and penalties imposed on the appellants for misdeclaration of goods and value leading to duty evasion. It held that the Customs House practice allowed for splitting the value of goods, and since the full value was available to the Revenue, there was no justification for the penalties. The Tribunal found no wilful misdeclaration and deemed the confiscation and differential duty demand unjust, stating that Section 125 of the Customs Act did not apply in this case. It allowed the appeals and provided consequential relief to the appellants. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 14 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91256