Imported second-hand machinery valuation and age finding require direct, comparable evidence; internet database prices alone are insufficient.

Age-based confiscation of imported second-hand machinery cannot stand unless the machine's manufacture date is proved by direct and reliable evidence; indirect foreign-agent information and inconclusive database references were insufficient, while a Chartered Engineer's certificate supported the declared age. Enhanced valuation also failed because the declared transaction value was rejected under the residual method without comparable contemporaneous imports or other tangible market evidence, and internet database prices did not show comparable sales of similar used machinery. A later auction sale at a much lower price further undermined the adopted value. Confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty were therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the age of the imported embroidery machine could be conclusively fixed so as to sustain confiscation on the ground that it was more than ten years old; (ii) whether the declared transaction value could be rejected and the machine valued on the basis of internet database prices and statements recorded during investigation.

Issue (i): Whether the age of the imported embroidery machine could be conclusively fixed so as to sustain confiscation on the ground that it was more than ten years old.

Analysis: The record did not contain any year of manufacture displayed on the machine. The age finding rested only on an indirect communication said to have been received by the Indian agent from a foreign office, without particulars of the specific machine imported. Against this stood the Chartered Engineer's certificate showing manufacture in 1993, and even the materials gathered during investigation did not establish that BESR series machines were manufactured only up to 1989, since later entries were also available in the database relied upon by the revenue.

Conclusion: The age of the machine was not proved with certainty and the finding that it was impermissibly old could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the declared transaction value could be rejected and the machine valued on the basis of internet database prices and statements recorded during investigation.

Analysis: The valuation was made under the residual method without comparable contemporaneous imports or other tangible evidence of identical or similar goods. The price relied upon was taken from a North American internet database, which did not show sale of similar second-hand machinery from Korea to India. The later auction sale at a much lower price also undermined the adjudicated figure and indicated that the adopted value was not a reliable measure of market value.

Conclusion: The rejection of the declared value and the enhanced valuation were not supported by reliable evidence and could not be upheld.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty were set aside, and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the age or value of imported second-hand goods is disputed, confiscation and enhanced valuation must rest on direct, reliable, and comparable evidence; conjectural foreign-agent information and internet database prices, without comparable imports or other tangible market evidence, are insufficient.

---