Customs classification and valuation failed where consistent import documents were not rebutted by technical evidence.

Contemporaneous import documents that consistently described the goods as rerollable steel scrap were accepted as reliable because their genuineness was not disputed and no technical evidence was produced to rebut them. On that basis, a port inspection alone could not displace the documentary record or justify reclassifying the goods as H beams. The use of Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 was also rejected because the alleged comparable goods were not shown to be truly similar, including a difference in country of origin. Redemption fine and personal penalty were therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether redemption fine and personal penalty were justified where the import documents described the goods as rerollable steel scrap and the Department sought to reclassify the goods and enhance valuation.

Analysis: The import documents, including the invoice, packing list, bill of lading, certificate of origin and inspection certificate, consistently described the goods as rerollable steel scrap. Their genuineness was not disputed by the Department, and no technical expert was engaged to rebut the importer's description. In these circumstances, the physical inspection at the port, standing alone, was insufficient to displace the documentary evidence or justify changing the classification to H beams. The invocation of Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 was also found unjustified because the alleged comparable goods were not shown to be truly similar, particularly in view of the difference in country of origin.

Conclusion: Redemption fine and personal penalty were not sustainable and were set aside in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned order was annulled to the extent it imposed redemption fine and personal penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the importer's contemporaneous documents consistently describe the goods and their genuineness is not rebutted, the Department cannot reclassify the goods or sustain penal consequences merely on an uncorroborated contrary inspection, and valuation by comparable goods requires proper similarity between the compared imports.

---