Declared transaction value and second-hand import licensing: valuation accepted without proof of extra consideration, but confiscation sustained for missing licence.

Declared transaction value of imported goods cannot be rejected unless the department establishes legally sufficient grounds under the valuation rules; suspicion, discrepancies or an alternative engineering assessment alone do not justify re-determination where there is no evidence of extra consideration, and the declared value was accepted. Import of second-hand capital goods without the prescribed licence, however, attracts confiscation under the import policy; redemption fine and penalty were therefore justified, though the quantum was reduced on the facts. The result was partial relief: valuation succeeded for the assessee, while liability on licensing breach and confiscation was sustained with moderated fine and penalty.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the declared transaction value of the imported goods could be rejected and the assessable value re-determined on the basis adopted by the department; (ii) whether the import of second-hand goods without the prescribed licence justified confiscation, redemption fine and penalty, and if so to what extent.

Issue (i): whether the declared transaction value of the imported goods could be rejected and the assessable value re-determined on the basis adopted by the department.

Analysis: The valuation adopted by the department was based on discrepancies in quantity, rejection of the importer's chartered engineer's certificate, and reliance on another engineering assessment. The governing rule permits rejection of the declared value only when the circumstances for such rejection are established, and the department must support re-determination with legally sufficient grounds. In the absence of evidence of additional consideration or any material showing that the declared value was not genuine, the transaction value cannot be discarded merely on suspicion or on the basis of an alternative valuation method.

Conclusion: The rejection of transaction value was not sustainable, and the valuation aspect was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the import of second-hand goods without the prescribed licence justified confiscation, redemption fine and penalty, and if so to what extent.

Analysis: The imported goods were second-hand capital goods and, under the import policy, such goods required a specific licence. In the absence of the licence, confiscation followed. The imposition of redemption fine and penalty was therefore justified, but the quantum had to be moderated in light of the facts and circumstances. The tribunal restricted the redemption fine and the penalty to percentages of the assessable value, while sustaining the confiscatory consequence for breach of the import policy.

Conclusion: Confiscation was upheld, and the redemption fine and penalty were reduced; this issue was decided against the assessee on liability, but in part in its favour on quantum.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on valuation but failed on the licensing and confiscation aspect, resulting in partial relief through reduction of fine and penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Declared transaction value can be rejected only on legally established grounds under the valuation rules, and in the absence of evidence of extra consideration it must be accepted; however, import of second-hand capital goods without the required licence remains liable to confiscation with proportionate fine and penalty.

---