TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (9) TMI 111
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring its CIF value at US $ 410 per metric tonne according to the bill of entry which was supplied by M/s. China National Native Product and Animal By-products Imports and Exports Corporation. The declaration of the imported goods made by the appellants described it as 'OFF grade Gum Rosin' which was the description of the quality of goods also in the Bill of Entry. It appears that as a result of some intelligence reports gathered by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bombay that Gum Rosin of standard or superior grades having higher CIF value was being imported and misdeclared as "OFF" grade, the import of the consignments of Gum Rosin covered by the Bill of Entry in the present cases was taken up FOR detailed investigation by the Dir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the contemporary CIF price of 'WG' grade of gum rosin was US $ 465 per metric tonne as evident from an invoice of the same supplier for supply of 'WG' grade of Gum Rosin imported by another importer and cleared through Bombay Port and, therefore, the ascertained CIF assessable value of the goods imported by the appellants was US $ 465 per metric tonne. The difference in the customs duty was determined on such valuation of goods for purposes of assessment in accordance with Section 14 of the Act. On this basis, the Deputy Collector of Customs determined the fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 and the penalty for improper importation of goods under Section 112 of the Act in the three cases at Rs. 1,40,000 + Rs. 70,000; Rs. 1,15....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llants conceded as evident also from the record, that no challenge was made to the laboratory test reports which had found the imported goods to be Gum Rosin of 'WG' grade instead of 'OFF' grade as declared by the appellants and also described in the Bill of Entry. This question is concluded against the appellants by concurrent finding of fact throughout. Appellants cannot be permitted to dispute this position also in view of their categorical statement in writing to the authorities that they did not dispute the laboratory test reports and were ready to get the matter adjudicated straightaway by waiving the notice to show cause against confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty as required by Section 124 of the Act. It is on this basis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with the entry made under the Act and was, therefore, liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Act. This conclusion is irresistible from the facts which are beyond challenge and the appellants' readiness for adjudication accepting the laboratory test reports. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the appellants did not incur any consequential liability on account of the fact that there is no material to indicate further that the misdeclaration by the appellants was deliberate and not bona fide. We do not find any merit in this contention. 11.Section 112, insofar as it is material for the present purpose, is as under :- Penalty for improper importation of goods etc."112. - Any person - who, in relation to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his requirement. The appellants acquired possession of the goods knowing very well or at least having reason to believe that the imported goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) since they did not dispute the test reports and agreed to adjudication. The further question of also the requirement of definite proof that they knew when they made the declaration that it was a misdeclaration does not arise in the present case for incurring the liability of penalty under Section 112 of the Act on these facts. The dispute raised by the appellants was confined only to liability for penalty and not its quantum. 13.Section 122 relates to adjudication of confiscations and penalties. Section 124 requires issue of show-cause notice before ....