https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121666 Misdeclaration of quantity and description in an import consignment justified confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the redemption fine and penalty were upheld because the excess and undeclared items were undisputed and the importer remained responsible despite the supplier's claimed inadvertence. By contrast, the declared transaction value could not be rejected on the record: the appellants' evidence that the goods were second-hand equipment purchased abroad at auction was sufficient to show that Rule 10A of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988 could not be invoked. The valuation challenge therefore succeeded, but confiscation, fine, and penalty were maintained. en-us Tue, 03 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Aug 2012 14:06:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121666 Misdeclaration of quantity and description in an import consignment justified confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the redemption fine and penalty were upheld because the excess and undeclared items were undisputed and the importer remained responsible despite the supplier's claimed inadvertence. By contrast, the declared transaction value could not be rejected on the record: the appellants' evidence that the goods were second-hand equipment purchased abroad at auction was sufficient to show that Rule 10A of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988 could not be invoked. The valuation challenge therefore succeeded, but confiscation, fine, and penalty were maintained. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 03 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121666