Transaction value and confiscation principles: unsupported valuation enhancement fails, while fine and penalty may be moderated.

Declared transaction value of imported goods cannot be rejected and assessable value cannot be enhanced under the Customs Valuation Rules without contemporaneous or corroborative evidence. The text states that transaction value must be accepted where it is shown to be correct, and that the revenue cannot proceed to alternative valuation methods on unsupported allegations. It also notes that imports made without the special licence required under the EXIM Policy may still be confiscated, but the redemption fine and penalty should be calibrated to the circumstances and comparable treatment in similar matters. On that reasoning, the valuation enhancement was set aside, confiscation was maintained, and the fiscal consequences were reduced.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the declared transaction value of the imported goods could be rejected and the assessable value enhanced in the absence of corroborative evidence. (ii) Whether the confiscation of the goods was sustainable and, if so, whether the redemption fine and penalty required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether the declared transaction value of the imported goods could be rejected and the assessable value enhanced in the absence of corroborative evidence.

Analysis: The valuation dispute turned on whether the revenue could discard the declared transaction value and proceed under Rules 5 to 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules without contemporaneous or corroborative evidence. The governing principle applied was that transaction value must be accepted where it is shown to be correct and there is no reliable evidence justifying rejection of that value.

Conclusion: The declared transaction value could not be rejected, and the enhancement of assessable value was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the confiscation of the goods was sustainable and, if so, whether the redemption fine and penalty required reduction.

Analysis: The imports were made without the special licence required under the EXIM Policy, so the confiscation was justified. However, the quantum of redemption fine and penalty had to be considered in light of the nature of the goods and the comparable treatment granted in similar matters involving the same class of imported goods. Applying that approach, the amounts imposed were found excessive and required moderation.

Conclusion: The confiscation was upheld, but the redemption fine and penalty were reduced to 10% and 5% respectively of the declared value.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded on valuation and on quantum of fiscal consequences, while the confiscation itself was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of contemporaneous or corroborative evidence, the declared transaction value of imported goods cannot be discarded and enhanced under the Customs Valuation Rules; where confiscation is otherwise justified, the redemption fine and penalty may still be scaled down according to the circumstances of the import.

---