Customs valuation and recovered invoices justify rejection of declared value when admissions prove under-valuation and rebuttal evidence is absent.

Under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, the declared transaction value of imported goods may be rejected under Rule 12 where recovered invoices and admissions show under-valuation. In this matter, invoices found on electronic devices matched the imported goods, reflected higher prices than those declared, and were corroborated by the importer's representative's statements admitting the true value and differential payments through non-banking channels. The objection under Section 138C to the use of those documents failed because their truth was admitted and no reliable contrary evidence was produced. The assessable value was therefore re-determined and the consequential customs duty, penalty and confiscation-related action were sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared transaction value of the imported goods could be rejected and the assessable value re-determined on the basis of invoices recovered from electronic devices and the admissions recorded during investigation, notwithstanding the objection based on Section 138C of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The valuation of imported goods is governed by Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, and the transaction value can be rejected only in accordance with Rule 12 of those Rules. The recovered invoices and commercial invoices, found on the laptop and mobile phone, related to the same goods imported under the concerned bills of entry and reflected prices higher than those declared before Customs. The statements of the importer's representative admitted that the documents represented the correct value and that differential amounts had been paid through non-banking channels. In these circumstances, the objection to admissibility under Section 138C was held to be without merit, since the truth of the documents stood admitted and the importer failed to produce bank-attested genuine invoices or any reliable material showing a different transaction value. The Tribunal further held that, on these facts, there was no requirement for the Revenue to independently produce contemporaneous imports.

Conclusion: The rejection of the declared transaction value and the re-determination of value on the basis of the recovered invoices and admissions was upheld, and the objection based on Section 138C failed.

Final Conclusion: The demand of differential customs duty and the consequential penal and confiscatory action survived judicial scrutiny, resulting in dismissal of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where recovered invoices and corroborative admissions establish under-valuation and the importer fails to rebut them with reliable contrary evidence, the transaction value may be rejected under Rule 12 and the assessable value re-determined without insisting on contemporaneous import evidence.

---