Import contract registration and transaction value must follow statute and cogent evidence, not inconsistent administrative clarification.

Prior registration of import contracts under the relevant notification had to be assessed by reference to the statutory meaning of "import" as the physical bringing of goods into India; an administrative clarification shifting the reference point to shipment could not override the parent Act. On the facts, the contracts were registered before import, so the confiscation condition was not met. In valuation, a declared transaction value could not be rejected on weak or irrelevant material, especially where supplier confirmations and export-union certification supported the prices. Unless the Department produces cogent evidence discrediting the declared value, enhancement is not justified.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported yellow poppy seeds were liable to confiscation on the ground that the import contracts had not been registered with the Narcotics Commissioner prior to import. (ii) Whether the declared transaction value of the goods could be rejected and enhanced on the basis of the material relied upon by the Department.

Issue (i): Whether the imported yellow poppy seeds were liable to confiscation on the ground that the import contracts had not been registered with the Narcotics Commissioner prior to import.

Analysis: The relevant notification required prior registration of import contracts, and the expression "import" had to be understood consistently with the parent statute governing foreign trade and customs, which treated import as the physical bringing of goods into India. A clarification that shifted the reference point to the date of shipment was held inconsistent with the governing Act and could not control the legal meaning of import. On the facts, the contracts were registered before the date of import, and the notification conditions were satisfied.

Conclusion: The confiscation under the import-condition ground was not sustainable and was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the declared transaction value of the goods could be rejected and enhanced on the basis of the material relied upon by the Department.

Analysis: The Department's valuation material was found unreliable because it largely referred to other varieties of poppy seeds or otherwise lacked probative value for yellow poppy seeds. The evidence supporting the declared prices, including supplier confirmations and export-union certification, showed that the declared values were consistent with prevailing prices. In the absence of suspicious circumstances or evidence discrediting the declared price, the transaction value could not be discarded merely on the basis of weak or irrelevant material.

Conclusion: The enhancement of valuation was not sustainable and was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on both the importability and valuation questions, and the orders of confiscation and enhancement could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: An administrative clarification that is inconsistent with the parent statute cannot override the statutory meaning of import, and a declared transaction value must be accepted unless the Department produces cogent evidence justifying rejection of that value.

---