https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790778 Material misdeclaration in import documents, including undeclared items, excess quantities and undervaluation, was treated as sufficient to establish suppression of facts under the Customs Act, 1962. On that basis, confiscation was upheld and the importer's explanation of supplier error was rejected for lack of supporting evidence. The same findings supported restoration of the statutory penalty under Section 114A and the original redemption fine, because the duty short-payment flowed from the suppressed and underdeclared import. The appellate reduction of penal consequences was therefore found inconsistent with the confirmed confiscation and duty demand, and the original adjudication was restored. en-us Tue, 28 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Apr 2026 07:19:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790778 Material misdeclaration in import documents, including undeclared items, excess quantities and undervaluation, was treated as sufficient to establish suppression of facts under the Customs Act, 1962. On that basis, confiscation was upheld and the importer's explanation of supplier error was rejected for lack of supporting evidence. The same findings supported restoration of the statutory penalty under Section 114A and the original redemption fine, because the duty short-payment flowed from the suppressed and underdeclared import. The appellate reduction of penal consequences was therefore found inconsistent with the confirmed confiscation and duty demand, and the original adjudication was restored. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 28 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790778