Declared import value cannot be displaced by a proforma invoice alone without proof of extra payment or undervaluation.

A proforma invoice not issued in the importer's name, without proof of extra payment or other reliable evidence of undervaluation, was insufficient to reject the declared transaction value of imported goods. The consignments had already been assessed by the proper officer, and those assessments were not challenged. As the material for enhancement failed, the re-determination of assessable value could not be sustained, and the consequential confiscation, redemption fine and penalties also fell.

---

---

Issues: Whether the re-determination of the assessable value of imported goods on the basis of a proforma invoice and alleged undervaluation was sustainable, and whether confiscation, redemption fine and penalties could survive when no evidence of extra payment was produced.

Analysis: The imported consignments had already been assessed by the proper officer and the assessments were not challenged. The only material relied upon for enhancement was a proforma invoice, but it was not issued in the appellant's name and, by itself, could not be treated as proof of the actual transaction value. No evidence was produced to show any extra payment over and above the declared invoice value. In the absence of reliable material establishing undervaluation, the basis for enhancement of assessable value failed. Since confiscation and penalties were consequential to the alleged undervaluation, they could not be sustained once the enhancement itself was found unsupported.

Conclusion: The enhancement of assessable value was not sustainable. The confiscation, redemption fine and penalties were set aside, and the appeal succeeded in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A proforma invoice, without proof of extra payment or other reliable evidence of undervaluation, is insufficient to reject the declared value and impose consequential confiscation or penalty.

---