Declared transaction value cannot be rejected on third-party prices alone; suppression evidence is required, and penalties fall with the duty demand.

Declared transaction value cannot be rejected merely because another importer paid different prices; reliable material showing suppression, misstatement, or other legally relevant circumstances is required before departure from the declared value is justified. On the facts stated, the demand for six consignments was time-barred because the extended limitation period could not be invoked in the absence of evidence that invoice values were false or understated. Revaluation based only on third-party imports at a different port, without comparable invoices or a proper basis for averaging values across models, was unsustainable. As the duty demand failed, the confiscation-related penalties also could not stand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand of duty for six consignments was barred by limitation and whether the extended period could be invoked on the basis of the facts available; (ii) Whether the declared transaction value could be rejected and the imported goods revalued on the basis of comparable imports, and whether penalties could survive.

Issue (i): Whether the demand of duty for six consignments was barred by limitation and whether the extended period could be invoked on the basis of the facts available.

Analysis: The demand was founded only on price comparison with imports by another importer. There was no material showing that the invoice prices were not the true transaction values, nor any material indicating a lower declared value or any wilful suppression or misstatement by the importer. Mere variation in prices between different importers or at different times does not, by itself, establish suppression or justify the extended period.

Conclusion: The extended period was not invocable and the demand for the six consignments was time-barred.

Issue (ii): Whether the declared transaction value could be rejected and the imported goods revalued on the basis of comparable imports, and whether penalties could survive.

Analysis: Revaluation was attempted solely on the basis of imports by another importer at a different port, without reliable comparable prices for several models and without supplying the supporting invoices to the importer. The approach of using average loading for items lacking direct comparables was not a proper basis for valuation. In the absence of material discrediting the declared transaction value, the reassessment was unsustainable. Since the duty demand failed, the confiscation-related penalties could not stand.

Conclusion: The rejection of transaction value and the consequential penalties were not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The imports were not shown to be undervalued on admissible material, the extended period could not be applied, and the consequential duty demand and penalties fell to the ground.

Ratio Decidendi: A declared transaction value cannot be rejected, and the extended period cannot be invoked, merely on the basis of third-party comparable prices unless there is reliable material showing suppression, misstatement, or other circumstances legally justifying departure from the declared value.

---