Customs valuation of used photocopiers must rest on evidence; licence-based confiscation stands, but fine and penalty may be reduced.

Customs valuation of second-hand photocopiers had to rest on tangible evidence, and the mere fact that used goods are often enhanced was insufficient to reject transaction value; the value enhancement was therefore set aside. Confiscation for importing the goods without a licence and contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy remained justified, but the redemption fine and penalty were reduced because the amounts had to be proportionate to the circumstances and the commercial burden of detention, demurrage, legal expenses, and interest. The final result was that the appeals succeeded only in deleting the valuation enhancement and moderating the monetary consequences, while the confiscation and liability in principle remained intact.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the enhancement of value of imported old and used photocopiers was sustainable in the absence of tangible evidence; (ii) whether the redemption fine and penalty deserved reduction while upholding confiscation for import without licence and in violation of the Foreign Trade Policy.

Issue (i): Whether the enhancement of value of imported old and used photocopiers was sustainable in the absence of tangible evidence.

Analysis: The valuation of imported goods must be determined on the basis of evidence and the transaction value can be rejected only on the strength of sufficient and tangible material. Mere doubt or a general practice of enhancement in respect of second-hand goods is not enough to sustain an upward revision of assessable value.

Conclusion: The enhancement of value was not justified and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the redemption fine and penalty deserved reduction while upholding confiscation for import without licence and in violation of the Foreign Trade Policy.

Analysis: The goods were second-hand photocopiers requiring a licence for import, so confiscability was not in dispute. However, the quantum of redemption fine and penalty had to reflect the circumstances of the import and the commercial impact of detention, demurrage, legal expenses, and interest. Applying the comparative approach followed in precedent, a lower percentage of the assessed value was found sufficient.

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

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only to the extent of deleting the value enhancement and reducing the monetary consequences, while the confiscation and liability to penalty for the licence violation remained intact.

Ratio Decidendi: Customs valuation must rest on tangible evidence, and where confiscation is otherwise justified, redemption fine and penalty may be moderated to a reasonable percentage of the assessed value having regard to the surrounding commercial burden.

---