Customs valuation and confiscation of gift parcel set aside where sender's declaration and undervaluation evidence were lacking.

A sender's description of a gift parcel as phones was not materially different from the goods found to be mobile phones, and the appellant had not made the declaration. The declared foreign value could not, by itself, be treated as conclusive for customs valuation in India; in the absence of any declaration or evidence from the appellant showing undervaluation, duty liability required fresh examination. Absolute confiscation and penalty were therefore set aside, and the matter was remanded for adjudication of duty liability before clearance of the goods.

---

---

Issues: Whether absolute confiscation and penalty were sustainable where the gift parcel was declared by the sender as phones but the goods were found to be mobile phones, and whether the declared value could be the basis for customs valuation in India.

Analysis: The declaration on the parcel was made by the sender, not by the appellant. The description of the goods as phones was not materially different from mobile phones. The declared foreign value could not, by itself, be treated as the decisive basis for valuation in India for customs purposes. In the absence of a declaration or evidence from the appellant showing undervaluation, the issue of duty liability required reconsideration by the proper authority.

Conclusion: Absolute confiscation and the penalty were set aside, and the matter was remanded for adjudication of duty liability for clearance of the goods.

---