Transaction value cannot be rejected on a contrary appraisal absent exceptional valuation circumstances; confiscation for unauthorised photocopier imports stands.

Import of secondhand photocopiers made after the EXIM Policy amendment without the required specific licence remained liable to confiscation, and penalty followed because the goods were imported in breach of the licensing condition. The declared transaction value, however, could not be rejected merely on the basis of a contrary local Chartered Engineer's appraisal where the load-port certificate supported the invoice value and no exceptional circumstances under the valuation rules were proved. The declared value was therefore accepted, and the redemption fine and penalty were required to be recalculated on that basis.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the import of secondhand photocopiers without a specific licence after the EXIM Policy amendment justified confiscation and penalty; (ii) whether the declared transaction value could be rejected on the basis of a local Chartered Engineer's appraisal, and the consequential fine and penalty altered.

Issue (i): whether the import of secondhand photocopiers without a specific licence after the EXIM Policy amendment justified confiscation and penalty.

Analysis: The imports were made after the policy amendment requiring a specific licence for secondhand photocopiers, yet the goods were imported without such licence. The absence of licence brought the goods within the scope of confiscation, and the importers' challenge to confiscation did not survive. Since the goods were liable to confiscation, the penal consequence under the customs law also followed.

Conclusion: The confiscation was upheld and the importers remained liable to penalty on this count.

Issue (ii): whether the declared transaction value could be rejected on the basis of a local Chartered Engineer's appraisal, and the consequential fine and penalty altered.

Analysis: The declared invoice value was supported by the load port Chartered Engineer's certificate, and there was no material showing that any higher price had been paid or that the declared price was influenced by extraneous considerations. The local Chartered Engineer's report, by itself, could not displace the transaction value unless the exceptional circumstances contemplated by the valuation rules were established. No such exception was proved, and reasonable doubt created by a divergent appraisal was not sufficient to reject the declared value. Once the declared value was accepted, the redemption fine and penalty had to be reworked on that basis.

Conclusion: The declared value was directed to be accepted, and the fine and penalty were modified accordingly.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded to the extent of acceptance of the declared value and corresponding modification of fine and penalty, while confiscation for unauthorised import remained intact.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of the exceptional circumstances required by the valuation rules, the declared transaction value cannot be rejected merely on the basis of a contrary Chartered Engineer's appraisal, and the resulting confiscation-related fine and penalty must be determined on the accepted declared value.

---