JUDGMENT

OZA, J. : — This appeal on special leave arises out of a Judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 4th April, 1978. The leave is granted on a limited question as regards the question of interpretation of sub-clause (m) of Section 111 of The Customs Act, 1962 (Act for short). The appellants imported 27 knitting machines as the appellant owns a hosiery factory in 1972. The appellants held an import licence for import of knitting machinery.

2. According to the Customs authorities the machinery was not new as the licence permitted to import, but was old reconditioned. The Customs authorities also held that the price shown by the appellant on the basis of invoice was much lower than what the price actually should be. The price shown by the appellant on the basis of invoice was Rs. 77441/- whereas according to the Customs authorities the price came to Rs. 2,98,359/-. On this basis, a show cause notice was issued and after hearing the appellant, the Collector of Customs Bombay by order dated 29-12-73 found that the appellants had committed breach of Section 111 (d) of the Act and also of Section 111 (m) of the Act and for both the counts the penalty was imposed on the appellants. Under Section 111 (d) the penalty imposed was Rs. 1,12,000/- in lieu of confiscation of goods and for breach of Section 111(m) a penalty of Rs. 1,47,000/- was imposed under Section 112 of the Act.

3. Against this order passed by the Collector of Customs, an appeal was filed by the appellants before the Board and the Board maintained the Order passed by the Collector of Customs. On revision, the Central Government, reduced the penalty from Rs. 1,47,000/- to rupees one lac only. Against this the appellant preferred a writ petition before the Delhi High Court which was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment dated 4th April, 1978 and aggrieved by this the present appeal has been preferred.

4. So far as the penalty under Section 111(d) in lieu of confiscation was concerned, the leave has not been granted and it is not disputed that the appellants have taken away the goods after paying the duty and in this appeal therefore we are not concerned with it. The only challenge before us therefore *is in respect of penalty of rupees one lac imposed under Section 111 (m) of the Act.

5. It is not disputed that Section 111(m) of the Act has been amended in 1973 by Act No. 36 of 1973 but this amendment will not be applicable to the present case. Section 111(m) as it stood before the amendment reads as under :

"Any dutiable or prohibited goods which do not correspond in any material particular with the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage with the declaration made under Section 77 in respect thereof."

and After the Amendment Act 1973 this provision now reads like :

" any goods which do not correspond in respect of value or in any other particular with the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage with the declaration made under Section 77 in respect thereof."

It is therefore clear that the word value was inserted in this provision. Before the insertion of this word value, Section 111 (m) appears to mean that if the dutiable or prohibited goods are imported which do not correspond in any material particular with the entry made under Section 46 of the Act and in case of baggage with the declaration made under Section 77, then alone Section 111 (m) could be attracted.

Section 46 of the Act provides :

"46. (1) The importer of any goods, other than goods intended for transit or transhipment, shall make entry thereof by presenting to the proper officer a bill of entry for home consumption or warehousing in the prescribed form :

Provided that if the importer makes and subscribes to a declaration before the proper officer, to the effect that he is unable for want of full information to furnish all the particulars of the goods required under this sub-section, the proper officer may, pending the production of such information, permit him, pr