https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108421 Lower declared value in the bills of entry did not justify confiscation or penalty where the discrepancy with the actual transaction value was not shown to be a deliberate attempt to evade duty. Although no satisfactory explanation was offered for the wrong invoice, the duty difference was small relative to the total duty payable and the surrounding circumstances did not support an inference of intent to cheat the revenue. The valuation discrepancy was treated as an error rather than a wilful misdeclaration, so confiscation under Section 111(m) and penalty under Section 112 were not sustainable. en-us Mon, 10 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Mar 2012 14:00:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108421 Lower declared value in the bills of entry did not justify confiscation or penalty where the discrepancy with the actual transaction value was not shown to be a deliberate attempt to evade duty. Although no satisfactory explanation was offered for the wrong invoice, the duty difference was small relative to the total duty payable and the surrounding circumstances did not support an inference of intent to cheat the revenue. The valuation discrepancy was treated as an error rather than a wilful misdeclaration, so confiscation under Section 111(m) and penalty under Section 112 were not sustainable. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 10 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108421