Transaction value cannot be rejected on unsupported contemporaneous import data; related customs demands and penalties also fail.

Assessable value of imported goods cannot be enhanced on the basis of unverified contemporaneous-import figures when the supporting bills of entry or other documents are not disclosed; the transaction value therefore remains undisturbed and the re-determination is unsustainable. Once the valuation exercise fails, the connected duty demand, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties also fall. For earlier clearances, a DRI-issued notice seeking re-classification and re-assessment was held vulnerable on jurisdictional grounds, while the same objection did not apply to the live consignment where assessment was still pending.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the declared value of the imported goods could be rejected and enhanced on the basis of contemporaneous imports without supplying supporting documents; (ii) whether the consequential demands of duty, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties could survive; and (iii) whether the show-cause notice issued by DRI for the earlier clearances was valid.

Issue (i): whether the declared value of the imported goods could be rejected and enhanced on the basis of contemporaneous imports without supplying supporting documents.

Analysis: The enhancement of value was founded only on a table of alleged contemporaneous imports, but the supporting bills of entry or other documents were not furnished despite remand and repeated request. The goods were treated as similar, yet the basis for similarity and the source of the figures were not established. In the absence of documentary support, the transaction value could not be displaced merely on the strength of unsupported figures.

Conclusion: The rejection of declared value and the re-determination of assessable value were unsustainable and were set aside.

Issue (ii): whether the consequential demands of duty, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties could survive.

Analysis: Once the enhancement of value and duty re-determination failed, the consequential confiscation, redemption fine and penalties could not stand on their own. The entire chain of liability rested on the valuation exercise, and the impugned consequences were therefore without foundation.

Conclusion: The duty demand, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties were set aside.

Issue (iii): whether the show-cause notice issued by DRI for the earlier clearances was valid.

Analysis: For the earlier bills of entry, the notice sought re-classification and re-assessment of goods already cleared for home consumption. In that context, the notice was hit by the law on jurisdiction of DRI officers under the customs duty demand provisions. As regards the live consignment, the matter did not attract the same objection because assessment was yet to be completed.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection succeeded in relation to the past clearances.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Assessable value cannot be enhanced on the basis of unverified contemporaneous-import data without disclosure of the supporting documents, and when the valuation foundation fails, all consequential customs demands and penalties fall with it.

---