PINE CHEMICAL SUPPLIERS AND ORS. versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (BOMBAY)

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 584 · Decided: 16-09-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PINE CHEMICAL SUPPLIERS AND ORS. 
v. 
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (BOMBAY) 
SEPTEMBER 16, 1992 
B 
(J.S. VERMA AND DR. A.S. ANAND, JJ.] 
Customs Act, 1962: 
Sections 2(16), 14(1), lll(m), 122, 124, and 125-Assessment of 
C du(JValuation of goods imported-Assessees declaring CIF value and 
description of goods on the basis of Bill of Entry-Goods found to be of 
different and superior grade of higher CIF value-Determination of duty on 
the basis of higher CIF valu,,-Validity of-Misdeclaration of goods-Conse-
quential liability of assessee. 
D 
The appellants imported Gum Rosin and dedared its CIF value and 
description according to the Bill of Entry supplied to them. As a result of 
intelligence reports gathered by the Customs Department and the 
laboratory test reports of the sample of goods in question, it was found 
that Gum Rosin of standard or superior W.G. Grade, having higher CIF 
E value, was being imported and misdeclared as 'OFF' Grade by the asses-
see. Accordingly, the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 
111 (m) in addtion to imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the 
Customs Act, 1962. 
However, on the appellant expressly informing the Department, in 
F 
writing, that they did not dispute the test reports and that they also waive 
notice to show cause against confiscation of the goods and imposition of 
penalty required to be given under Section 124 of the Act, and stating 
clearly that they were ready to get the matter adjudicated for this purpose 
by the customs authorities, requesting for release of the goods as they 
G needed them urgently, on their personal bond or guarantee, the goods in 
question were released and adjudication proceeded with. 
After ascertaining the CIF assessable value of the goods imported by 
the appellants, the difference in the customs duty was determined and fine in 
lieu of confiscation under Section 125 and penalty for improper importation 
H of goods under Section 112 of the Act in the three cases was imposed. 
584 
PINE CHEMICAL 
v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS 
585 
The appellants' appeals under Section 128 of the Act, were dis-
A 
missed by the Collector (Appeals). The further appeals under Section 
129A of the Act were also dismissed by the Appellate Tribuna~ except for 
reduction in the quantum of fine and penalty. Hence, the appeals against 
the Tribunal's order. 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court, 
HELD: 1. There is no infirmity in the Tribunal's order. The mis-
declaration of the goods imported by the appellants rendered it liable to 
confiscation nuder Section lll(m) and attracted Section 112 for imposi-
B 
tion of penalty for improper importation of goods on the appellants on C 
acljudication made under Section 122 giving th1' appellants option to pay 
fine in lien of confiscation, to which they readily agreed accepting the 
laboratory test reports which proved the misdeclaration of the imported 
goods and attracted these provisions for acljudication of confiscation and 
penalty. [591-D] 
2.1. In view of the categorical statement of the appellants in writing 
D 
to the anthorities that they did not dispute the laboratory test reports and 
were ready to get the matter acljudicated straightaway by waiving the 
notice to show cause against confiscation of goods and imposition of 
penalty as required by Section 124 of the Act, the appellants obtained E 
clearance of the imported goods for appropriation by them. The goods 
imported by the appellants was Gum Rosin of 'WG' Grade and not 'OFF' 
Grade as declared by them or described in the Bill of Entry and the 
valuation of the imported goods as Gum Rosin of 'WG' Grade for pur-
poses of assessment doos not, therefore, suffer from any infirmity and is 
not open to challenge. [588 E-H; 589-A] 
F 
2.2. On the conclusion that the goods imported by the appellants 
were 'WG' Grade Gum Rosin and not 'OFF' Grade Gum Rosin, it is 
beyond dispute that the imported goods did not correspond in respect of 
value as well as description with the entry made under the Act and was, 
therefore, liable to confiscation under Section lll(m) of the Customs Act. G 
[589 D-E] 
2.3. Section 125 provides for option to pay fine in lieu of confisca-
tion, which was resorted to in the present case accepting the appellants' 
prayer to release the goods to them oc their agreeing to adjudication H 
586 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS[l992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
proceedings. Sections 122, 124 & 125 were clearly attracted in the case of 
these imported goods a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.