Full disclosure in customs settlement and reliance on authenticated foreign customs records can support duty valuation and limited immunity.

Settlement proceedings require a full and true disclosure of the correct duty liability before immunity can be granted; where the applicant confines disclosure to fewer consignments than those covered by authenticated investigative material, full immunity is unavailable and only limited relief may follow. Authenticated Hong Kong Customs documents may be relied on to determine customs duty, and where direct evidence exists for some consignments, comparable values may reasonably be extended to similar consignments from the same supplier. The document affirms that foreign customs records obtained through official channels can support valuation and fixation of duty liability in customs settlement matters.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicant had made a full and true disclosure of the correct duty liability so as to justify settlement and grant of immunities. (ii) Whether the duty liability could be determined on the basis of authenticated Hong Kong Customs documents and derived values for comparable consignments.

Issue (i): Whether the applicant had made a full and true disclosure of the correct duty liability so as to justify settlement and grant of immunities.

Analysis: The disclosure made by the applicant was confined to fewer consignments than those for which the investigative material had already been shown, and the explanation for restricting the admission remained inconsistent. The materials obtained through official channels were found to be genuine and authenticated, and the applicant did not furnish a satisfactory basis to support the limited disclosure. In settlement proceedings, the applicant is required to make a complete disclosure of the duty liability and the manner in which it arose.

Conclusion: The disclosure was not full and true. The applicant was therefore not entitled to the full immunities under the settlement scheme, though limited relief in penalty and interest was considered.

Issue (ii): Whether the duty liability could be determined on the basis of authenticated Hong Kong Customs documents and derived values for comparable consignments.

Analysis: The documents received from Hong Kong Customs were held to be duly authenticated and reliable. Since direct evidence existed for certain consignments and the goods were similar and sourced from the same supplier, the same value basis could reasonably be extended to other consignments where direct evidence was unavailable. The approach was consistent with the valuation principles applied in customs matters and with earlier decisions approving the use of authenticated export declarations and comparable values.

Conclusion: The duty demand based on the authenticated foreign customs records and derived values was upheld, and the correct duty liability was fixed at the amount demanded in the show cause notices.

Final Conclusion: The settlement was sustained on terms adverse to the applicant on duty liability, with limited relief only in the form of partial waiver of penalty and interest and immunity from prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi: In settlement proceedings, immunity is unavailable where the applicant fails to make a full and true disclosure, and authenticated customs records obtained through official channels may be relied upon to determine duty liability, including by adopting comparable values for similar consignments.

---