Declared import value and MRP-based confiscation depend on strict proof, sequential valuation rules, and retail-packaging findings.

Declared import value may be rejected only on legally sustainable evidence and the Customs Valuation Rules must be applied sequentially; on the facts discussed, rejection was justified only for goods misdescribed as wall lamps and floor lamps, not for the remaining consignments. Confiscation under Section 111(d) for non-declaration of MRP depends on a clear finding that the imported goods were pre-packaged commodities for retail sale, and that foundational finding was absent. Penalty on the partners was therefore not sustained independently at that stage and was made to follow the final valuation and confiscation findings. The matter was remanded for de novo adjudication on the limited issues identified.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the declared transaction value of the imported goods could be rejected and re-determined under the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988; (ii) whether the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 for non-declaration of MRP; and (iii) whether penalty could be sustained on the partners apart from the importer firm.

Issue (i): whether the declared transaction value of the imported goods could be rejected and re-determined under the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.

Analysis: The declared description was found incorrect only in respect of the goods shown as wall lamps and floor lamps, which were found to be wall clocks with LEDs and humidifiers respectively. In respect of table lamps, the examination revealed lamps fitted with CFL and this did not amount to a misdescription. For the remaining goods, there was no material showing misdeclaration of description. Rejection of declared value requires legally sustainable grounds and the valuation must proceed sequentially through the prescribed rules. No reliable evidence of contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods was shown, and the quotation relied upon was not established as a dependable basis for valuation. Domestic raw-material prices could not by themselves justify rejection of the declared value.

Conclusion: The declared value could be rejected only for the goods misdescribed as wall lamps and floor lamps, and not for the remaining goods; the matter required re-determination for the misdescribed items alone.

Issue (ii): whether the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 for non-declaration of MRP.

Analysis: The MRP requirement applies to pre-packaged commodities imported for retail sale to ultimate consumers. The adjudication order did not record a clear finding whether the imported goods were in such pre-packaged form or were bulk packages. Without that foundational finding, confiscation under the foreign trade conditions could not be finally affirmed.

Conclusion: The question of confiscation under Section 111(d) required fresh adjudication after a finding on whether the goods were pre-packaged commodities.

Issue (iii): whether penalty could be sustained on the partners apart from the importer firm.

Analysis: Penalty was to correspond with the liability ultimately attached to the goods and the extent of confiscation. In the absence of a final redetermination of the liability, separate penalties on the partners were not warranted at that stage.

Conclusion: Separate penalty on the partners was not sustained and the penalty exposure was to follow the final valuation and confiscation findings.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication limited to re-determination of value for the misdescribed goods and the confiscation issue relating to MRP declaration; the assessee obtained partial relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Declared import value can be rejected only on legally sustainable evidence and valuation must proceed sequentially under the prescribed rules, while confiscation for non-declaration of MRP depends on a clear finding that the goods are pre-packaged commodities meant for retail sale to ultimate consumers.

---