Import valuation cannot be enhanced on a stranger's proforma invoice without proof of extra consideration; confiscation also fails.

Assessable value of imported goods could not be enhanced on the basis of a proforma invoice not issued in the importer's name, especially where no evidence showed extra payment beyond the declared invoice value and the bill of entry assessment had not been challenged. The proforma invoice alone was insufficient to prove the true transaction value. Because the alleged under-valuation failed, the connected confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty also could not be sustained. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, and the duty enhancement and penal consequences were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessable value of the imported goods could be enhanced on the basis of a proforma invoice not issued in the importer's name and without evidence of extra payment; (ii) Whether confiscation of the imported goods and consequential penalty and redemption fine were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the assessable value of the imported goods could be enhanced on the basis of a proforma invoice not issued in the importer's name and without evidence of extra payment.

Analysis: The bills of entry had already been assessed by the proper officer and that assessment had not been challenged. The only material relied upon for enhancement was a proforma invoice recovered during investigation, but it was not issued in the appellant's name. A proforma invoice, by itself, does not establish the actual transaction value because commercial price is ordinarily settled after negotiation between the parties. No document was produced to show any extra payment over and above the declared invoice value.

Conclusion: The enhancement of assessable value was not justified and the appellant succeeded on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscation of the imported goods and consequential penalty and redemption fine were sustainable.

Analysis: Confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty were founded on the alleged under-valuation. Once the basis for enhancement of value failed, the consequential allegations could not survive. The record did not disclose sufficient grounds for confiscation or for sustaining penalty and redemption fine.

Conclusion: The confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty were unsustainable and the appellant succeeded on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, and the impugned duty enhancement and connected penal consequences did not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: An imported goods valuation cannot be enhanced merely on the basis of a proforma invoice not issued to the importer unless there is reliable evidence of extra consideration or other material proving suppression of the true transaction value; consequential confiscation and penalty cannot survive once that foundation fails.

---