The genesis of the dispute in these appeals, pursued at the instance of competent Committee of Chief Commissioners of Customs aggrieved by the outcome in two adjudication proceedings, is controversy over valuation and, that too, of alleged overvaluation of imported goods which, in the context of tariff, bears no consequence of deficiency in discharge of duties of customs. And the lack of cause thereto is attributable to the bundling of the impugned goods within the omnibus ‘project imports’, leviable to duties of customs at the rate corresponding to tariff items enumerated below heading 9801 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which has not been controverted and, with that, eligibility to ‘nil’ rate on refinery and thermal power projects with duty at 3% on fertilizer projects being beyond dispute. Yet, proceedings were initiated by notice issued under section 124 of Customs Act, 1962 proposing to hold the imported goods as liable to confiscation, under section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962, as a necessary pre-requisite for the obvious intent of proposing imposition of penalties under section 112 and section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962. The consummation, empowered from justifiable cause of
