Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + SC Customs - 1986 (9) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1986 (9) TMI 78 - SC - CustomsWhether the term 'value' was not in Sec. 111(m) of the Act before the amendment but that will make no difference as according as even without the term 'value' a mis-description could be interpreted to be a mis-description on the basis of value stated and ultimately the goods found to be of a higher value? Held that:- It is not in dispute that a penal provision has to be strictly construed and reading Sec. 111(m) before the amendment is not possible to draw an inference that any difference in material particulars may be referable to 'value'. This argument therefore cannot be accepted. The scheme of Sec. 111(m) as* it stood then nowhere referred to the difference of value as one of the ingredients which may attract this provision. In such a situation therefore if it was not the specific intention of the provision, a difference in respect of value therefore could not be said to attract this provision and on that basis no penalty could be imposed. The appeal is allowed and the orders passed by the Collector, Board, Central Government and the High Court are hereby set aside. The penalty imposed on the appellants under Sec. 111(m) read with Sec. 111(d) is hereby quashed. The appellant shall be entitled to get refund of the penalty if already deposited.
|