Declared value of imported goods cannot be enhanced without reliable proof of a true comparable import and undervaluation.

Declared value for a second-hand crane cannot be rejected merely on the basis of a discrepant Chartered Engineer certificate and a website printout unless the Revenue reliably proves that the online reference concerns the same goods. Where the alleged comparable differs on make, year and capacity, it does not establish undervaluation or justify enhancement of assessable value. If enhancement fails, the consequential customs demand, confiscation and penalties also fall, and any penalty claim under Section 114A has no independent footing once the demand itself is set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the declared value of the imported second-hand crane could be enhanced on the basis of the Chartered Engineer's certificate and a website printout of an allegedly identical crane, and whether the resulting demand, confiscation and penalties could survive; (ii) Whether the Revenue's appeal for additional penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 survived after the demand itself was set aside.

Issue (i): Whether the declared value of the imported second-hand crane could be enhanced on the basis of the Chartered Engineer's certificate and a website printout of an allegedly identical crane, and whether the resulting demand, confiscation and penalties could survive.

Analysis: The certificate relied upon by the importer contained discrepancies, but the other particulars matched the import documents. Even assuming the certificate was not fully reliable, the Revenue's reliance on the website printout did not establish identity between the imported crane and the crane shown online. The make, year and capacity disclosed material differences, so the online reference could not furnish a valid basis for rejecting the declared value and enhancing assessable value.

Conclusion: The enhancement of value was unsustainable, and the consequential demand of differential duty, confiscation and penalties could not be maintained; the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the Revenue's appeal for additional penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 survived after the demand itself was set aside.

Analysis: Once the demand based on enhanced valuation was found unsustainable, the foundation for penalty under Section 114A ceased to exist.

Conclusion: The Revenue's appeal did not survive and was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside in substance, the assessee's appeals were allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was rejected as infructuous on the merits after failure of the demand.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the alleged comparable import is not shown to be the same goods and the relied-upon material does not reliably establish undervaluation, the declared assessable value cannot be rejected and all consequential duties, confiscation and penalties must fall.

---