TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (9) TMI 78
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stoms authorities the machinery was not new as the licence permitted to import, but was old reconditioned. The Customs authorities also held that the price shown by the appellant on the basis of invoice was much lower than what the price actually should be. The price shown by the appellant on the basis of invoice was Rs. 77,441/- whereas according to the Customs authorities the price came to Rs. 2,98,359/-. On the basis, a show cause notice was issued and after hearing the appellant, the Collector of Customs, Bombay by order dated 29-12-73 found that the appellants had committed breach of Section 111(d) of the Act and also of Section 111(m) of the Act and for both the counts the penalty was imposed on the appellants. Under Section 111(d) th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respect thereof." and after the Amendment Act 1973 this provision now reads like : "any goods which do not correspond in respect of value or in any other particular with the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage with the declaration made under Section 77 in respect thereof." It is therefore clear that the word 'value' was inserted in this provision. Before the insertion of this word 'value', Section 111(m) appears to mean that if the dutiable or prohibited goods are imported which do not correspond in any material particular with the entry made under Section 46 of the Act and in case of baggage with declaration made under Section 77, then alone Section 111(m) could be attracted. 6. Section 46 of the Act provides : "46.(1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lue, as this sub-clause clearly show that the difference in value could not be made the basis of breach of this sub-clause before the amendment of 1973, when the term 'value' has been introduced into this sub-clause. 7. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that in fact in the decision of this Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. M/s. Rai Bahadur Shree Ram Durga Prasad (P) Ltd. & Ors. 1969(2) SCR 727 this Court considered the question of description and came to the conclusion that a penal provision has to be construed strictly and in absence of specific words requiring 'value' to be mentioned, it could not be inferred that any difference in value could be made the basis of penalty. Whereas learned counsel appearing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctity of those regulations should be maintained but at the same time it should not be forgotten that s. 12(1) is a penal section. The true rule of construction of a section like s. 12(1) is, if we may say so with respect, as mentioned by Plowman, 3. in Re H. P.C. Productions Ltd. (1962), Ch. Dn. 466 at 473." It is therefore clear that their Lordships relied on the rule of construction holding that penal provision has to be strictly construed and held that where the provision itself did not require the value to be stated for any error in respect of that, no penalty could be imposed. Learned counsel contended that it was because of this decision that the Amendment Act 1973 was passed by the Parliament and the term 'value' was inserted in Sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the ground that the price shown by the appellant in the declaration was much less than what was ultimately found by the Department to be the price of imported goods and in respect of this difference of price, it was held that there is a difference in material particulars which brought the matter within the mischief of Sec. 111(m) of the Act. But in view of the fact that the term 'value' was not in Sec. 111(m) before the amendment of 1973 this difference on the basis of value could not be said to be a difference in material particulars within the meaning of the language of Sec. 111(m) and in this view of the matter, the view taken by the authorities could not be maintained. 10. The High Court in its judgment releasing this difficult....