Export valuation proof sustained against overvaluation allegations; confiscation and penalty fell after unreliable market comparisons failed.

Declared export valuation of wrist watches was not shown to be overvalued where it was only marginally above the manufacturer's clearance value and was supported by AR-4 documentation and a cost-construction certificate countersigned by the jurisdictional officer. Market enquiries and loosely described sale memos were treated as an unsafe basis for comparison, particularly for a generic description such as electronic digital watches. The exporter's connection with the manufacturing company did not, by itself, establish overvaluation, and the factory-approved declared value remained the relevant benchmark. On that basis, the finding of overvaluation was held unsustainable, and confiscation and penalty were set aside with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the exported wrist watches were overvalued so as to justify confiscation and penalty.

Analysis: The declared valuation was only marginally above the manufacturer's clearance value and stood supported by the AR-4 documentation and the cost-construction certificate countersigned by the jurisdictional officer. The departmental attempt to discredit the valuation by relying on market enquiries and loosely described sale memos was found unreliable, since the documents did not provide a safe basis for comparing the price of a generic commodity described as electronic digital watches. The department's reliance on the exporter's connection with the manufacturing company did not establish overvaluation, and the declared valuation approved in the manufacturer's factory remained the relevant benchmark.

Conclusion: The finding of overvaluation was not sustainable. The confiscation and penalty were set aside, and consequential relief was directed.

---