Customs valuation requires independent assessment; under-valuation must be proved by the Revenue before duty demand or detention of goods.

Customs valuation and anti-dumping duty cannot be insisted upon merely on a comparative import price or a superior officer's direction; the proper officer must independently complete assessment under the Customs Act by examining the goods, and where required, testing them and seeking relevant documents or information. Provisional assessment is permissible only if statutory conditions are satisfied and the officer forms his own view on the need for further inquiry. Because the Revenue had not independently assessed the consignments or discharged the burden of proving under-valuation, the demand basis was unjustified. Pending completion of lawful assessment, interim release of the goods on bond and undertaking was warranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the customs authorities were justified in insisting on valuation and anti-dumping duty on the basis of a comparative import price without independently completing assessment under the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) whether the petitioner was entitled to release of the imported goods pending assessment.

Issue (i): whether the customs authorities were justified in insisting on valuation and anti-dumping duty on the basis of a comparative import price without independently completing assessment under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The expression "proper officer" in Section 2(34) of the Customs Act, 1962 places the duty of assessment on the officer entrusted with that function. Under Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962, assessment must follow examination and, where necessary, testing and calling for relevant documents or information. Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 permits provisional assessment only when the statutory conditions are satisfied and the officer forms his own view on the need for further documents, test, or inquiry. The Court held that the officers had not independently assessed the goods, had not forwarded samples for expert valuation, and had relied merely on a superior officer's letter and on another importer's stated price without comparable material establishing that the two consignments were of the same nature and quality. The burden of proving under-valuation lay on the Revenue, and that burden had not been discharged.

Conclusion: The insistence on valuation and anti-dumping duty on that basis was not justified, and the assessment had to be made independently by the proper officer.

Issue (ii): whether the petitioner was entitled to release of the imported goods pending assessment.

Analysis: Since the assessment had not been lawfully completed and the Revenue had not established a proper basis for withholding clearance, the Court directed release of the goods on security and required the assessment exercise to be completed promptly. The direction preserved the officer's obligation to decide the matter independently and without being influenced by the Court's observations.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to release of the goods on furnishing bond and undertaking.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the customs authorities were required to complete assessment independently and expeditiously, and interim release of the goods was ordered on security.

Ratio Decidendi: In customs valuation disputes, the Revenue must independently discharge the burden of proving under-valuation, and provisional or final assessment cannot rest merely on another importer's price or a superior officer's direction without statutory inquiry by the proper officer.

---