TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1561
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....whereby, differential customs duty of Rs. 1,03,045/- was confirmed, interest was demanded under Section 18(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. The imported furniture was held liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed under Section 125 and penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 were imposed upon the appellant M/s Khazana as well as it's Managing Partner Shri Bhawanth Anand (another appellant). 2. The appellant has accepted the differential duty and interest and has deposited the same. The present dispute is confined to legality of confiscation, redemption fine and penalties. 3. The fact in brief, is that the appellant M/s Khazana is engaged in the import of fur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellants has filed these appeals before this Bench. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that since the goods had already been provisionally released under Section 18(1) and assessment had subsequently been finalised under Section 18(2), confiscation itself could not legally survive. Consequently, redemption fine under Section 125 was also not sustainable. 9. It is argued that appellant has accepted the differential duty only to avoid prolonged litigation and such payment cannot amount to admission of intentional undervaluation. 10. It is further submitted that redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- is excessive considering the fact of the case. 11. Regarding penalty upon Shri Bhawant Anand, it is argued that once penalty has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h Kumar and Co. Impex Pvt Ltd., & Others [2025 (9) TMI 76 (SC)] (ii) Principal Commissioner of Customs Vs Kishan Manjibhai Gadhesariya [2022 (4) TMI 316 (Guj HC)] to contend that once undervaluation is proved through reliable documentary and electronic evidence, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty necessarily follow. 14. We have heard both the sides and perused the records with their submissions. 15. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the Learned Counsel for the appellants has fairly stated that the appellants are not disputing the demand of differential customs duty arising on account of under valuation of the imported furniture. The differential duty has already been discharged and, therefore, the only sur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rvaluation justifies confiscation of the goods and the consequential imposition of redemption fine and penalty in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act. 18. Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 provides for imposition of penalty on any person who, by any act or omission, renders imported goods liable to confiscation under Section 111. Once the goods are held liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) for deliberate mis-declaration of value, the statutory consequence of penalty under Section 112(a) ordinarily follows. The object of the person is not merely compensatory but also deterrent, so as to discourage intentional evasion of customs duty by resorting to undervaluation. The plea of the appellants that they have accept....