Final assessment of imported machinery cannot be reopened; later valuation evidence and denied cross-examination could not sustain penalties.

Re-determination of the value of imported second-hand machinery was impermissible where the original assessment had already been completed, the declared value had been enhanced at import, and that assessment had attained finality. A subsequent valuation exercise based on a later Chartered Engineer certificate, statements, and material from other consignments could not justify reopening the same assessment or support confiscation, duty demand, or penalties. Denial of cross-examination of the Chartered Engineer also breached natural justice. The operative effect is that valuation cannot be reopened on the same goods without lawful basis, and evidence from other consignments cannot by itself sustain undervaluation findings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the re-determination of value of the imported second-hand machinery was lawful, and whether the consequential confiscation, duty demand and penalties could be sustained.

Analysis: The assessment of the imported goods had already been completed and the declared value had been enhanced at the time of import. The Department sought to reopen valuation on the basis of a subsequent Chartered Engineer certificate, material relating to other consignments, and statements recorded during investigation. The assessment made at the time of import had attained finality and had not been challenged or set aside. In these circumstances, a second exercise of valuation and assessment on the same goods was impermissible. The order was also vitiated by denial of cross-examination of the Chartered Engineer, which offended the principles of natural justice. Evidence relating to other machines could not be used to confirm undervaluation in the present matter, and no material showed any omission or commission justifying re-determination or penalty.

Conclusion: The re-determination of value was unsustainable, the confiscation and duty demand were not justified, and the penalties on the importer and its directors could not be upheld.

---