Customs valuation and under-valuation findings justified rejection of declared value, with confiscation and duty demand sustained.

Declared transaction value of imported semi-precious stones was rejected because search findings, branded packing material, and the partner's admissions indicated under-valuation. The assessable value was then determined through a duly constituted committee of trade experts and an officer, and that valuation process was found to be lawful. On that basis, confiscation, redemption fine, penalty, and differential duty demand were sustained, and the challenge to valuation failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared transaction value of the imported semi-precious stones could be rejected and the revaluation, confiscation and consequential duty demand upheld.

Analysis: The imported goods were found in the course of search along with branded packing material, and the goods were being packed for sale under brand names. The partner's admissions supported the finding that the consignments had been under-valued. The valuation was undertaken by a duly constituted committee comprising trade experts and an officer, and the committee's opinion was used to determine the correct assessable value. In these circumstances, the rejection of the declared value was held to be justified and the valuation process was found to be in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The challenge to the valuation failed, and the confiscation, redemption fine, penalty and differential duty demand were sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were not accepted and the impugned order was affirmed on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where under-valuation of imported goods is established and the assessable value is determined by a duly constituted expert committee, the declared transaction value can be rejected and the consequent confiscation and duty demand upheld.

---