Declared value of used machinery can be rejected where no genuine transaction is proved, while age-based import restriction needs reliable evidence.

Declared invoice value for second-hand printing machinery may be rejected where the paperwork does not evidence a genuine transaction between the importer and the invoicing party, and valuation may then be determined on a depreciation-based method supported by the available material. Confiscation for used machinery turns on reliable proof of import restriction, particularly the actual age of the machines; the record supported confiscation of the ten Heidelberg machines as more than ten years old, but not the four Thompson machines, for which the evidence was inconclusive. Benefit of doubt was extended to those machines, with the redemption fine and penalty correspondingly reduced.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the declared value of the imported second-hand printing machinery could be rejected and valuation determined on the basis of the available material and depreciation norms; (ii) whether confiscation and penalty were justified for all the machines, including the assessment of their age and importability.

Issue (i): Whether the declared value of the imported second-hand printing machinery could be rejected and valuation determined on the basis of the available material and depreciation norms.

Analysis: The invoice value was not accepted as transaction value because the documents showed that the sale was not to the importer and there was no real transaction between the appellant and the invoicing party. The local chartered engineer's valuation was also not fully reliable because the basis of market enquiries and comparable prices was not disclosed. For valuation of used machinery, the Board's circular prescribed a depreciation-based method with reference to the cost of manufacture, and the importer accepted that approach as a workable basis. On that footing, the valuation adopted in the impugned order was lower than the value that would result from the circular-based method.

Conclusion: The rejection of the declared invoice value was upheld, and the valuation adopted in the order was sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscation and penalty were justified for all the machines, including the assessment of their age and importability.

Analysis: The record supported the finding that the ten Heidelberg machines were more than ten years old, making their import liable to restriction and justifying confiscation. By contrast, there was no reliable material showing the actual age of the four Thompson machines, and the available evidence did not conclusively establish their import violation. In that situation, benefit of doubt was extended in respect of those machines. Consequentially, the redemption fine and penalty required reduction.

Conclusion: Confiscation was sustained for the ten Heidelberg machines and set aside for the four Thompson machines, with reduction in redemption fine and penalty.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part: the valuation challenge failed, confiscation survived for the machines whose age was proved, and the other machines were relieved on benefit of doubt with corresponding reduction in monetary consequences.

Ratio Decidendi: In valuation of imported second-hand machinery, a declared invoice value may be rejected where it is not shown to represent a genuine transaction value, and confiscation may be sustained only when the age-based import restriction is proved by reliable material.

---