Customs valuation and confiscation: expert evidence defeated scrap claim, but the Department failed to prove higher assessable value.

Imported consignments were found, on expert examination and the Department's own material, to consist largely of unused, serviceable zinc articles rather than scrap, so confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 was treated as justified on the facts, especially in light of statements indicating an attempt to evade duty. On valuation, the Department's report was rejected because it relied on Indian market value and did not correctly value the goods; once discarded, no reliable evidence remained to support a higher assessable value. The burden to prove valuation continued to rest on the Department, and the High Court's view was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported goods were misdeclared scrap or serviceable zinc articles, and whether the Department had proved confiscability and correct valuation.

Analysis: The goods were examined with the aid of an expert report, which showed that only a few pieces were scrap and the balance consisted of unused, serviceable zinc articles. The Department's own material supported the conclusion that the consignment was not scrap, while the statements recorded under Section 108 also indicated an attempt to evade duty. The seizure and confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, therefore stood justified on the facts found below. On valuation, the report obtained by the Department was disapproved because it did not correctly value the goods and was based on Indian market value. The Court accepted that, once that valuation was discarded, the Department had no reliable evidence to support a higher assessable value, and the burden to prove valuation remained on the Department.

Conclusion: The imported goods were not proved to be scrap, the Department failed to sustain its valuation, and the High Court's decision was not interfered with.

---