1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") dated 14-2-1994 whereby the Tribunal, has upheld the order passed by the Collector, Customs, Kandla dated 8-3-1991 directing confiscation of the goods imported by the appellant and imposition of the penalty of Rs 5,00,000 and directing that the goods could be released subject to payment of redemption fine of Rs 20,00,000. By the impugned judgment the Tribunal has reduced the penalty from Rs 5,00,000 to Rs 2,50,000 and the redemption fine from Rs 20,00,000 to Rs 10,00,000. The matter relates to import of 1564 evaporators for automobiles under two separate bills of lading. 1466 units were of That origin and 98 units were of Japanese origin. The value of the said evaporators as disclosed by the appellant was S $ 45 per piece for evaporator of That origin and S $ 60 per piece for evaporator of Japanese origin. A show-cause notice dated 8-12-1990/10-12-1990 was served on the appellant wherein it was stated thus:
"(1) the goods have been misdeclared: they were found to be complete cooling unit with blower assembly, as against the 'evaporator' declared;
(2) the value of the goods has been under declared with a view to evade payment of appropriate customs duty; and (3) the subject goods have been imported unauthorisedly inasmuch as they were not covered by the endorsement on the licence produced for clearance."
2. In the said show-cause notice it was also stated that some of the goods were without marks; in some cases markings were torn off in identical manner of all the sides and that there were also some discrepancies with regard to the number of pieces and the country of origin. By order dated 8-3-1991 the Collector of Customs found that:
"(1) The country of origin of 210 pieces has been misdeclared as Thailand while the goods were of Japanese origin.
(2) The goods imported were evaporator assembly and that the evaporator assembly was more than an evaporator.
(3) Prices for customs purposes have been underdeclared. The correct assessable values were determined as Singapore $ 220 per piece for goods of Japanese origin and as Singapore $ 165 per piece for goods of That origin, as against the declared assessable value of Singapore $ 60 and Singapore $ 45 respectively.
(4) The import was unauthorised as the licence produced for clearance was not valid and did not cover the goods imported."
3. The Collector demanded a differential customs duty of Rs 64,72,362 and while ordering confiscation of the goods imposed a redemption fine of Rs 20,00,000 and penalty of Rs 5,00,000. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment has agreed with the findings recorded by the Collector but has recorded (sic reduced) the redemption fines and penalty as indicated above.
4. We have heard Shri Kailash Vasdev, the learned counsel for the appellant on this appeal and we have carefully perused the impugned judgment of the Tribunal as well as that of the Collector. In our view the findings recorded by the Collector which have been upheld by the Tribunal relate to questions of fact and we do not find that they suffer from an error of law. No ground is made out for interfering with the findings recorded by the Collector which have been upheld by the Tribunal regarding misdeclaration of the value of the goods that were imported by the appellant.
5. Shri Vasdev has submitted that the penalty and the redemption fine which have been imposed by the Tribunal may be reduced in view of the facts and circumstances of this case. We are unable to accept the said contention of Shri Vasdev. In the result, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.