Declared value, separate software classification, and no penalty absent misdeclaration in customs valuation dispute

Declared transaction value cannot be rejected merely because identical goods were imported by another buyer at a different commercial level; the higher comparable price was not a valid benchmark on these facts. Imported machine and software were separately classifiable and could not be clubbed for assessment, though the claimed exhibition or demonstration discount was disallowed because it was not shown to be a recognised commercial discount. In the absence of suppression or misdeclaration, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were unsustainable and were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the declared transaction value could be rejected and the value of the imported goods reassessed with reference to the price of identical goods supplied to another importer; (ii) whether the value of the machine and the software was liable to be clubbed for assessment; and (iii) whether confiscation and penalty were sustainable.

Issue (i): whether the declared transaction value could be rejected and the value of the imported goods reassessed with reference to the price of identical goods supplied to another importer

Analysis: The invoice and supplier price list showed that the appellants were treated as distributors and were given a distributor price different from the price charged to an individual buyer. The earlier import relied upon by the Department was at a different commercial level. The evidence did not justify treating the higher price of the other importer as the benchmark for rejection of the declared value.

Conclusion: The rejection of transaction value was not sustainable in the manner adopted, and the declared value could not be displaced merely by reference to the other import.

Issue (ii): whether the value of the machine and the software was liable to be clubbed for assessment

Analysis: Software and hardware were distinct for classification purposes. Chapter Note 6 of Chapter 85 kept recorded media under their own heading even when supplied with the apparatus for which they were intended. The imported machine and the software therefore required separate classification and separate duty treatment. The additional 15% discount claimed on the basis of exhibition or demonstration was not shown to be a universally accepted commercial discount and was disallowed under the valuation rules.

Conclusion: The machine and software were not to be clubbed, but the 15% discount was inadmissible and the invoice price was liable to be loaded to that extent.

Issue (iii): whether confiscation and penalty were sustainable

Analysis: On the facts found, there was no suppression or mis-declaration sufficient to attract confiscation. In the absence of such culpable conduct, the penal consequences could not stand.

Conclusion: Confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part: the goods were to be assessed with separate treatment for machine and software, the 15% discount was disallowed, but confiscation and penalty were annulled.

Ratio Decidendi: Imported software and the hardware with which it is supplied are separately classifiable where the legal scheme so requires, and a comparable import at a different commercial level cannot justify rejection of the declared value unless the valuation rules are otherwise satisfied; penal consequences require proof of mis-declaration or suppression.

---