Customs valuation cannot be enhanced on internet price data alone without evidence of extra consideration or valid rejection grounds.

Declared customs transaction value for imported second-hand printers could not be rejected merely on internet or email price references where no evidence showed extra consideration and bank transfer records supported the declared price; the valuation enhancement was therefore set aside. Confiscation of the goods was nevertheless sustained because the second-hand capital goods were treated as not freely importable, but the monetary consequences were reduced to a 10% redemption fine and 5% penalty on transaction value. The stated principle is that customs valuation cannot be enhanced on internet-based comparisons alone without reliable evidence justifying rejection of the declared transaction value.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the declared transaction value of the imported second-hand printers could be rejected and enhanced solely on the basis of internet and email prices; (ii) whether confiscation could be sustained and, if so, what redemption fine and penalty were .

Issue (i): Whether the declared transaction value of the imported second-hand printers could be rejected and enhanced solely on the basis of internet and email prices.

Analysis: The valuation was rejected only on the basis of internet prices and email data. No evidence showed any extra consideration having been paid over and above the declared price, and bank transfer documents supported the importer's declared value. In this setting, the cited customs valuation principles did not permit rejection of the transaction value merely because of internet-based price information.

Conclusion: The declared transaction value was accepted and the enhancement was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscation could be sustained and, if so, what redemption fine and penalty were .

Analysis: The goods were treated as not freely importable second-hand capital goods, and confiscation was therefore upheld. However, the quantum of fine and penalty had to be aligned with the comparable orders relied upon, which justified limiting the monetary consequences to 10% redemption fine and 5% penalty on the transaction value.

Conclusion: Confiscation was sustained, but the redemption fine and penalty were restricted to 10% and 5% of the transaction value respectively.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only to the extent of deletion of the valuation enhancement, while the confiscation was maintained with reduced fine and penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: A declared customs transaction value cannot be rejected and enhanced merely on internet or email prices unless there is reliable evidence of additional consideration or other legally permissible grounds for rejection.

---