https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783297 HC upheld the confiscation of the imported goods under Section 111(m) CA, 1962, as the importer admitted multiple errors in the declared assessable value and accepted the enhanced valuation determined by the Department. The court rejected the contention that Nil duty notifications for "plans, drawings and designs" could exclude design charges from the assessable value of the imported machinery, holding them to be a distinct assessable component rightly includible under the valuation rules. Consequently, imposition of redemption fine and penalty under Section 112 was sustained, with the court emphasizing the limited discretion available in penalty once liability to confiscation is established. All questions were answered in favour of the Revenue. en-us Wed, 03 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Dec 2025 08:28:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783297 HC upheld the confiscation of the imported goods under Section 111(m) CA, 1962, as the importer admitted multiple errors in the declared assessable value and accepted the enhanced valuation determined by the Department. The court rejected the contention that Nil duty notifications for "plans, drawings and designs" could exclude design charges from the assessable value of the imported machinery, holding them to be a distinct assessable component rightly includible under the valuation rules. Consequently, imposition of redemption fine and penalty under Section 112 was sustained, with the court emphasizing the limited discretion available in penalty once liability to confiscation is established. All questions were answered in favour of the Revenue. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 03 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783297