Mis-declaration of imported goods supports confiscation and rejection of declared value when market enquiry valuation is justified.

Mis-declaration in the description and quantity of imported goods, including the presence of undeclared goods, justified confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962 because the importer had not correctly declared the consignment contents. The declared transaction value was also rejectable where mis-declaration made the stated value unacceptable, and valuation by market enquiry under the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 was upheld in the absence of contemporaneous import evidence and any material irregularity in the adopted method. The retraction of statements did not displace the valuation basis accepted by the department.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the mis-declaration in description and quantity of imported goods justified confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) Whether the declared transaction value could be rejected and the assessable value determined on the basis of market enquiry under the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.

Issue (i): Whether the mis-declaration in description and quantity of imported goods justified confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The imported goods, on examination, were found to differ from the declaration in the bill of entry in both quantity and description, and additional undeclared goods were also found. The admitted discrepancy meant that the importer had not correctly declared the contents of the consignment. On those facts, confiscation of the goods was warranted.

Conclusion: The confiscation was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the declared transaction value could be rejected and the assessable value determined on the basis of market enquiry under the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.

Analysis: The Court relied on the principle that, where there is mis-declaration of goods, the declared value may be treated as unacceptable. The initial acceptance of the department's valuation basis was not displaced by a delayed retraction of the proprietor's statements. In the absence of contemporaneous import evidence and with no material irregularity in the adopted method, valuation by market enquiry under Rule 9 was held to be justified.

Conclusion: The rejection of the declared value and the enhanced valuation were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, the impugned order was sustained, and the departmental action on confiscation and valuation stood confirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imported goods are mis-declared in description or quantity, the declared transaction value may be rejected and value may be determined by an alternative method, including market enquiry, if contemporaneous import data is unavailable.

---