Import valuation enhancement fails without corroboration; consequential duty, redemption fine and penalties cannot survive.

Valuation of imported goods cannot be enhanced solely on third-party statements unless supported by corroborative evidence such as contemporaneous imports, reliable test material, or an inculpatory statement from the importer. Here, the alleged undervaluation was not established on the basis of indenting agents' statements alone, and the record did not supply dependable evidence to sustain revaluation. As the valuation enhancement failed, the consequential confiscation-linked duty demand, redemption fine, and penalties also lacked foundation and were set aside in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the enhancement of value of the imported goods on the basis of third-party statements, without corroborative evidence of contemporaneous imports or an inculpatory statement from the importer, was sustainable and, if not, whether the consequential redemption fine, differential duty and penalties could stand.

Analysis: The goods were sought to be revalued solely on the basis of statements of indenting agents. The test reports and surrounding material did not establish the alleged undervaluation with reliable supporting evidence. The absence of contemporaneous import data for identical or similar goods, coupled with the lack of any inculpatory statement from the appellant-importer, made the valuation enhancement unsustainable. Once the allegation of undervaluation failed, the foundation for confiscation-related consequences and penal action also disappeared.

Conclusion: The enhancement of value was set aside, and the consequential demand of duty, redemption fine and penalties were unsustainable. The appeals were allowed in favour of the assessee.

---