Relevant date of import and unsupported valuation enhancement cannot sustain confiscation, fine, or penalty for air cargo imports.

For air imports, the relevant date is when goods leave the last port or airport in the exporting country, not the later customs clearance date; on that basis, goods that departed before the DGFT restriction notification were not subject to a licence requirement. Once the goods were not treated as restricted, confiscation could not stand. The Tribunal also held that value enhancement based only on a Chartered Engineer's certificate, without independent corroborative evidence of misdeclaration, was insufficient to sustain confiscation or consequential redemption fine and penalty. The impugned order was therefore set aside and relief followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the relevant date of import was 13.02.2013 or 28.02.2013, and whether the imported goods were restricted goods requiring a licence. (ii) Whether confiscation, redemption fine and penalty could be sustained, and whether the enhanced valuation based only on the Chartered Engineer's certificate was justified.

Issue (i): Whether the relevant date of import was 13.02.2013 or 28.02.2013, and whether the imported goods were restricted goods requiring a licence.

Analysis: The imported goods had left the last port of export before the DGFT Notification dated 28.02.2013 came into force. The Tribunal applied the settled principle that, for import by air, the relevant date is when the goods leave the last port/airport in the exporting country and not the later date of customs clearance. On that basis, the import was treated as having occurred prior to the restriction notification, and the goods were not covered by the post-28.02.2013 licensing restriction.

Conclusion: The relevant date of import was 13.02.2013, and no import licence was required.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscation, redemption fine and penalty could be sustained, and whether the enhanced valuation based only on the Chartered Engineer's certificate was justified.

Analysis: Once the goods were held to be importable without restriction, the basis for confiscation failed. On valuation, the enhancement rested on the Chartered Engineer's certificate, but there was no independent corroborative material showing misdeclaration. The Tribunal reiterated that enhancement of value cannot, by itself, establish misdeclaration and cannot sustain confiscation or consequential penalty in the absence of supporting evidence.

Conclusion: Confiscation was not sustainable, and the redemption fine and penalty were liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order could not be sustained and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: When the evidence shows that imported goods left the exporting country before a later restriction notification took effect, the goods are not treated as restricted; further, valuation enhancement based only on a Chartered Engineer's report, without corroborative evidence of misdeclaration, cannot justify confiscation or consequential fine and penalty.

---