Declared value for imported scrap cannot be rejected without evidence of extra payment or valid valuation rejection.

Declared transaction value for imported aluminium scrap could not be rejected without material showing extra payment or a valid basis under the valuation provisions. The importer relied on supplier documents and had sought mutilation if the department was not satisfied that the goods were scrap. Following the importer's earlier case, the Tribunal noted that the declaration did not indicate an intention to misdeclare and that no proper exercise had been undertaken to discard the declared value. On that basis, enhancement of value, confiscation of the goods and penalty were held unsustainable, with consequential relief granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the enhancement of value, allegation of misdeclaration, confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty were sustainable in respect of the imported aluminium scrap.

Analysis: The declared description and value were based on the supplier's documents and the appellant had sought mutilation of the goods if the department was not satisfied about their being scrap. The Tribunal followed the decision in the appellant's own earlier case, where it was held that the declaration did not show an intention to misdeclare and that no proper exercise had been undertaken to reject the declared transaction value under the valuation provisions. In the absence of material showing extra payment or a valid basis to discard the declared value, the enhancement and consequential penal action could not survive.

Conclusion: The enhancement of value, confiscation and penalty were not sustainable and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

---