Declared import value rejected where shipping documents showed higher valuation; duty pre-deposit denied, penalty recovery stayed pending appeal.

Contemporaneous shipping documents and export records showing a higher value than the importer's declared price justified rejection of the declared transaction value as the assessable value. On that basis, waiver of pre-deposit of the duty demand was refused because no sufficient ground existed to dispense with deposit. However, interim protection was granted for the penalty portion, and recovery of that amount was stayed pending disposal of the appeal. The note thus reflects that documentary evidence indicating understatement of import value can defeat waiver of duty pre-deposit, while separate interim relief may still be available on the penalty component.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit of the duty demand and, if not, whether any interim protection could be granted in respect of the penalty portion.

Analysis: The application was considered on the material indicating that the imported goods were directly shipped from the foreign supplier and that the invoices and export declarations reflected a higher value than the value declared by the importer. On that basis, the transaction value declared by the importer was not accepted as the assessable value, and no sufficient ground was found for dispensing with pre-deposit of the duty demand. At the same time, interim protection was considered appropriate for the penalty portion pending disposal of the appeal.

Conclusion: Waiver of pre-deposit of the duty demand was refused, while recovery of the penalty portion was stayed during the pendency of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where contemporaneous documents and shipment particulars indicate that the declared import value does not reflect the real assessable value, pre-deposit of the duty demand may be declined even though interim relief may still be granted for the penalty portion.

---