Comparable import valuation needs contemporaneous evidence; supplier error and rectified clerical mistakes cannot by themselves justify confiscation.

Declared import value cannot be rejected and enhanced on the basis of a bare internet price quote; comparable valuation requires reliable contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods with relevant comparability factors, so the enhanced value could not be sustained on that material alone. Confiscation under Section 111(m) was not established on the present record where the colour, batch number and batch quantity mismatch appeared to arise from the foreign supplier's mistake and the declared quantity matched, absent clear material of mala fide intent or duty evasion. A rectified typographical error in the test certificate also could not by itself justify confiscation under Section 111(d), and the matter required fresh adjudication after reconsideration and hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the transaction value of imported goods could be rejected and enhanced on the basis of an internet price quote without contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods. (ii) Whether the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 for mismatch in colour, batch number and batch quantity caused by the foreign supplier's mistake. (iii) Whether the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 for an batch number in the test certificate, later rectified by the laboratory.

Issue (i): Whether the transaction value of imported goods could be rejected and enhanced on the basis of an internet price quote without contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods.

Analysis: Enhancement of value cannot rest solely on a website quotation. For rejection of declared value and application of the comparable-value method, the material must show contemporaneous imports of similar or identical goods and relevant comparability factors such as quality, country of export and time of import. A bare internet quote, especially for a much smaller quantity, is insufficient by itself.

Conclusion: The declared transaction value could not be enhanced merely on the basis of the website quotation.

Issue (ii): Whether the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 for mismatch in colour, batch number and batch quantity caused by the foreign supplier's mistake.

Analysis: A mismatch caused by the supplier's error, particularly where the total quantity declared matched and no clear material indicated mala fide intent or duty evasion, does not by itself justify confiscation. The matter required reconsideration of the supplier's clarification and the question of intent.

Conclusion: Confiscation under Section 111(m) was not sustainably established on the present record and required fresh examination.

Issue (iii): Whether the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 for an erroneous batch number in the test certificate, later rectified by the laboratory.

Analysis: Once the laboratory rectified the typographical error, the incorrect entry ceased to subsist as a defect. A mere corrected clerical error, without more, could not sustain confiscation.

Conclusion: Confiscation on this ground was not justified and the rectification had to be taken into account.

Final Conclusion: The order of the lower authority was set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh adjudication after reconsidering the valuation and confiscation issues and granting hearing to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Rejection of declared import value requires reliable contemporaneous comparable evidence, and confiscation cannot be sustained on the basis of a supplier's bona fide mistake or a rectified typographical error absent material showing mala fide intent or duty evasion.

---