Declared import value cannot be rejected on rival expert opinion alone; confiscation and penalty may still follow for prohibited used machinery.

Declared transaction value of imported used machinery cannot be rejected merely because a local chartered engineer report suggests a higher value; where the import is supported by an originating certificate and there is no independent basis to discredit it, reassessment on competing expert opinion alone is unsustainable. The goods, being more than ten years old and imported contrary to the applicable import control regime, were nevertheless liable to confiscation and penalty under customs law. On the facts, confiscation and penalty were upheld in principle, but the redemption fine and penalty were reduced as excessive.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the declared transaction value of the imported used machinery could be rejected and re-determined on the basis of local chartered engineer reports; (ii) Whether the goods were liable to confiscation and penalty, and if so, whether the redemption fine and penalty required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether the declared transaction value of the imported used machinery could be rejected and re-determined on the basis of local chartered engineer reports.

Analysis: The import was accompanied by a load port chartered engineer certificate and there was nothing on record to discredit its genuineness. The local chartered engineer reports did not furnish any independent or stronger basis for rejecting the originating certificate, and the reassessment rested essentially on conflicting expert opinions. In the absence of sufficient independent reason to discard the importer's certificate, the declared value could not be displaced merely because another opinion suggested a higher value.

Conclusion: The re-assessment based on the local chartered engineer's opinion was not sustainable, and the declared value was accepted.

Issue (ii): Whether the goods were liable to confiscation and penalty, and if so, whether the redemption fine and penalty required reduction.

Analysis: The imported goods were more than ten years old and, on that footing, were found to have been imported in breach of the import control regime under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and the applicable import procedures. That rendered the goods liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962, and the importer liable to penalty. However, considering the facts, the quantum of redemption fine and penalty was found excessive and was reduced.

Conclusion: Confiscation and penalty were upheld, but the redemption fine and penalty were reduced.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part by restoring the declared value and reducing the monetary liabilities, while sustaining confiscation and penalty in principle; the Revenue's appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An imported consignment's declared value cannot be rejected merely on the basis of another expert opinion unless there is sufficient independent reason to discard the importer's supporting chartered engineer certificate.

---