Declared import value cannot be displaced by anonymous quotations or local price lists without reliable commercial evidence.

Declared import value supported by the manufacturer's invoice cannot be rejected on the basis of unverified or anonymous material. An e-mail quotation with obscured sender and recipient details, together with a local price list and an unidentified invoice, was found inadequate because it could not be reliably verified and did not displace the declared transaction value. Local pricing evidence alone was also insufficient where the governing valuation rule required proper commercial evidence. On that basis, enhancement of value was held unsustainable, and the confiscation and penalty consequences could not be sustained against the importer.

---

---

Issues: Whether the enhancement of the declared import value could be sustained on the basis of an e-mail quotation, a local price list and an unidentified invoice, and whether such material was sufficient to justify confiscation and penalty.

Analysis: The declared price was supported by the manufacturer's invoice. The departmental material relied upon for enhancement was found inadequate because the e-mail quotation emanated from an unidentified source, the identity of the sender and recipient was obscured, and the surrounding circumstances made the material incapable of reliable verification. The local price evidence was also insufficient to displace the declared value, and reliance on local pricing was inconsistent with the governing valuation rule.

Conclusion: The enhancement of value was not sustainable, and the order of confiscation and penalty could not be interfered with in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the importer's declared value was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Imported value cannot be rejected on the basis of unverified or anonymous material, and local price evidence by itself is insufficient where the declared transaction value is supported by proper commercial documents.

---