Customs valuation, restricted-import confiscation and fine reduction apply where used printers were imported without authorisation.

Acceptance of an enhanced customs value at clearance does not, by itself, bar a later challenge in appeal, but the enhancement will be sustained where supported by a Chartered Engineer's estimate and no material shows it to be arbitrary. Used multi-function printers imported after the Foreign Trade Policy amendment were restricted goods requiring authorisation, so import without authorisation rendered them liable to confiscation. Where the redemption fine was excessive against the declared value, it could be reduced, while a penalty within a reasonable range of that value could be maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the enhancement of assessable value based on the Chartered Engineer's report required interference. (ii) Whether the imported used multi-function printers were liable to confiscation for import without authorization under the Foreign Trade Policy. (iii) Whether the redemption fine and penalty required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether the enhancement of assessable value based on the Chartered Engineer's report required interference.

Analysis: Acceptance of the enhanced value before clearance did not waive the appellant's right to dispute valuation in appeal. However, the enhancement was supported by the Chartered Engineer's estimate, and no evidence was produced to show that the valuation was arbitrary or unsustainable.

Conclusion: The enhanced value was upheld against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the imported used multi-function printers were liable to confiscation for import without authorization under the Foreign Trade Policy.

Analysis: The goods were imported after the amendment to paragraph 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14, by which such goods became importable only against authorization. As the appellant had no authorization, the goods were treated as restricted goods and were liable to confiscation.

Conclusion: The confiscation was upheld against the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether the redemption fine and penalty required reduction.

Analysis: The redemption fine was found to be excessive in relation to the declared value and was reduced to a reasonable amount. The penalty, being within a reasonable percentage of the declared value, was not interfered with.

Conclusion: The redemption fine was reduced, while the penalty was upheld against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of reduction of the redemption fine, while the enhanced valuation, confiscation, and penalty were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Acceptance of an enhanced customs value to secure clearance does not bar appellate challenge, but where the enhancement is supported by credible valuation material and the goods are imported in breach of a post-amendment restriction without authorization, confiscation may be sustained and only the quantum of redemption fine may be moderated if excessive.

---