Customs valuation may use dealer-confirmed list price after depreciation, while unsupported add-ons and penalties can be moderated.

Declared import value may be rejected where it appears unrealistically low, and customs valuation may instead be based on a reliable dealer-confirmed list price after depreciation. Unsupported additions for extra fittings and refurbishment are not justified once the vehicle is accepted as a high-end luxury car with standard fittings. Non-compliance with import conditions requiring prior possession abroad can sustain confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act and the Foreign Trade Act, but the monetary consequences may be moderated having regard to the custody period and surrounding circumstances.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the declared value of the imported car could be rejected and assessment made on the basis of the dealer's list price after allowing depreciation, and whether additions for extra fittings and refurbishment were justified; (ii) whether the car was liable for confiscation and the appellant liable for penalty for non-compliance with the import conditions, and whether the redemption fine and penalty required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether the declared value of the imported car could be rejected and assessment made on the basis of the dealer's list price after allowing depreciation, and whether additions for extra fittings and refurbishment were justified.

Analysis: The declared price was found to be unrealistically low, and the later receipt voucher could not represent the transaction value because it was issued after import. The alternative materials relied on by the importer were not accepted as reliable comparables. The assessment could therefore proceed on a reliable list price confirmed by the authorised dealer under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, followed by depreciation. However, once the vehicle was accepted as a high-end luxury car with standard fittings, separate additions for extra fittings and refurbishment lacked justification.

Conclusion: The declared value was rightly rejected, assessment was upheld on the dealer's price after depreciation, and the additions for extra fittings and refurbishment were set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the car was liable for confiscation and the appellant liable for penalty for non-compliance with the import conditions, and whether the redemption fine and penalty required reduction.

Analysis: The importer had not satisfied the import condition requiring prior possession abroad for the prescribed period, attracting confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, and penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The breach justified confiscation and some penalty, but the prolonged custody of the car and the surrounding circumstances warranted moderation of the monetary consequences.

Conclusion: Confiscation and liability to penalty were sustained, while the redemption fine and penalty were reduced.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to a limited extent by reducing the redemption fine and penalty and by disallowing unjustified valuation add-ons, while sustaining the rejection of the declared value and the confiscatory consequences.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the declared import value is shown to be unreliable, customs valuation may be based on a credible dealer-confirmed list price with depreciation, but unsupported ancillary additions cannot be loaded; breach of import policy conditions can still sustain confiscation and penalty, subject to judicial moderation of quantum.

---