Declared invoice value can be rejected on surrounding evidence, while technical import defects may be met with redemption.

Contemporaneous invoices and surrounding import records may justify rejection of the declared transaction value where the documentary evidence shows that the stated invoice price does not reflect the true value of the consignment; the assessable value was therefore upheld as enhanced. For measuring tapes bearing non-metric inscriptions such as "inches", the compliance breach was treated as technical rather than warranting the harshest consequence, so redemption on payment of fine was permitted instead of compulsory re-export and the penalty was reduced. The valuation issue was decided against the importer, while the import restriction issue was moderated in favour of redemption.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the declared assessable value of the imported goods could be rejected and enhanced on the basis of the invoices and surrounding evidence; (ii) whether the presence of non-metric inscriptions such as "inches" on measuring tapes justified confiscation, re-export, and the quantum of penalty.

Issue (i): Whether the declared assessable value of the imported goods could be rejected and enhanced on the basis of the invoices and surrounding evidence.

Analysis: The invoices produced during enquiry showed that the quantities in the supplier's invoices matched the quantities in the invoices relied upon by the importer, but the values were materially different. The invoices from China were treated as relating to the same consignments, and the bill of lading and other surrounding circumstances supported the conclusion that the Singapore invoices did not represent the true transaction value of the imported goods.

Conclusion: The rejection of the declared value and enhancement of assessable value was upheld, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the presence of non-metric inscriptions such as "inches" on measuring tapes justified confiscation, re-export, and the quantum of penalty.

Analysis: The circular issued by the Board, read with the amended position regarding measuring tapes, indicated that such goods need not be treated as so seriously non-compliant as to require re-export in every case. The violation was treated as warranting redemption on payment of fine, and the penalty imposed by the original authority was found excessive in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: Confiscation was not disturbed, but the goods were permitted to be redeemed instead of being re-exported and the penalty was reduced, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The valuation dispute was decided against the importer, while the import restriction issue was moderated by permitting redemption and reducing the penalty, leading to a mixed result overall.

Ratio Decidendi: Where contemporaneous documentary evidence and surrounding import records show that the declared invoice value does not reflect the true value of the consignment, the assessable value may be enhanced; and a technical import violation may be met by redemption rather than compelled re-export where the circumstances do not justify a harsher consequence.

---