https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52310 Deliberate undervaluation proved by double invoicing and undeclared remittance justified duty demand and penalty, because the declared invoice value did not reflect the true transaction value and the misdeclaration attracted confiscability under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The duty demand and penalty were upheld. However, although the goods had already been cleared, redemption fine was not warranted on the facts and was therefore set aside under Section 125(1). The appeal thus succeeded only in part, with the fiscal consequences sustained but the monetary redemption fine annulled. en-us Mon, 21 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Oct 2010 11:18:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52310 Deliberate undervaluation proved by double invoicing and undeclared remittance justified duty demand and penalty, because the declared invoice value did not reflect the true transaction value and the misdeclaration attracted confiscability under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The duty demand and penalty were upheld. However, although the goods had already been cleared, redemption fine was not warranted on the facts and was therefore set aside under Section 125(1). The appeal thus succeeded only in part, with the fiscal consequences sustained but the monetary redemption fine annulled. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 21 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52310