Declared customs value needs recorded reasons to be rejected; parcel-wise misdeclaration must be proved before confiscation.

Declared transaction value in customs valuation must ordinarily be accepted unless it is first rejected on valid, recorded reasons; enhancement under the valuation rules without such a basis was unsustainable. Misdeclaration of imported goods must be established parcel-wise: two postal parcels were found correctly described, while one parcel was held to require fresh examination because the description did not match the test result. The 100 gms. parcel also needed clarification before any adverse finding could stand. The impugned order was set aside and the matters were remanded for fresh adjudication after hearing the importer.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the declared transaction value of the imported goods could be rejected and enhanced under the valuation rules without recording valid reasons; (ii) whether there was misdeclaration of description in respect of the postal parcels and whether confiscation under the customs law was sustainable; (iii) whether the position relating to the 100 gms. parcel required reconsideration in the de novo proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the declared transaction value of the imported goods could be rejected and enhanced under the valuation rules without recording valid reasons.

Analysis: The valuation of imported goods must ordinarily proceed on the declared transaction value unless that value is first rejected on valid grounds. The adjudicating order did not disclose any specific reason for discarding the invoice value claimed by the importer. In such circumstances, enhancement of value by directly invoking the valuation rules was not sustainable.

Conclusion: The declared transaction value could not be rejected and enhanced without a reasoned basis, and the valuation required fresh consideration.

Issue (ii): Whether there was misdeclaration of description in respect of the postal parcels and whether confiscation under the customs law was sustainable.

Analysis: Two of the three postal parcels were correctly described by the supplier and claimed accordingly by the importer, so no misdescription was made out for those parcels. One parcel, however, was described as a different chemical while test results showed it to be Mifepristone, which established misdescription for that parcel alone. The question of confiscability therefore depended on a proper reassessment of the facts and the relevant postal import procedure.

Conclusion: There was no misdescription in respect of the two parcels, but the third parcel disclosed misdescription requiring fresh examination of confiscation.

Issue (iii): Whether the position relating to the 100 gms. parcel required reconsideration in the de novo proceedings.

Analysis: The record did not present a clear and consistent picture regarding the 100 gms. parcel. The material placed suggested that it was covered by a separate show-cause notice and that its nature and identity needed clarification before any adverse finding could be sustained in the present proceedings.

Conclusion: The issue relating to the 100 gms. parcel was left for clarification and reconsideration in the remand proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matters were sent back for fresh adjudication after giving the importer a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: Declared value in customs valuation cannot be displaced under the valuation rules unless it is first rejected on valid, recorded reasons, and misdeclaration must be established parcel-wise on the basis of clear evidence.

---