Declared value of used computers cannot be rejected without basis, while unauthorised import still attracts confiscation and limited penalties.

Declared transaction value for imported used computers could not be rejected merely on suspicion where no legally sustainable basis was shown for discarding the Chartered Engineer's certificate, so enhancement of value was not justified. Import of second-hand computers without the required special licence remained liable to confiscation under customs law, but redemption fine and penalty were confined to the established proportional limits. Undeclared 500 CD-ROMs and one Pentium III computer required separate valuation because they were not covered by the filed bills of entry, and the matter had to be re-quantified on the basis of the Chartered Engineer's certificate for assessable value, fine and penalty.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the value declared for the imported used computers could be rejected and enhanced despite the Chartered Engineer's certificate. (ii) Whether the imported second-hand computers were liable to confiscation for import without the required licence and what limits should apply to redemption fine and penalty. (iii) Whether the non-declared 500 CD-ROMs and one Pentium III computer required separate valuation and reassessment.

Issue (i): Whether the value declared for the imported used computers could be rejected and enhanced despite the Chartered Engineer's certificate.

Analysis: The declared value could not be discarded merely on suspicion where the authorities did not record any adequate basis for rejecting the Chartered Engineer's certificate. In the absence of proof of any extra consideration or other legally sustainable grounds for upsetting the declared transaction value, the valuation adopted by the lower authorities was not justified.

Conclusion: The rejection of the Chartered Engineer's certificate and the enhancement of value were not sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the imported second-hand computers were liable to confiscation for import without the required licence and what limits should apply to redemption fine and penalty.

Analysis: The import of second-hand used computers required a special import licence under the applicable import policy framework. Since the goods were imported without such licence, confiscation followed under the Customs Act. At the same time, the Tribunal applied the settled approach of limiting monetary consequences in similar cases to a proportion of the assessable value.

Conclusion: The goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, while redemption fine was limited to 10% of the assessable value and penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was limited to 5% of the assessable value.

Issue (iii): Whether the non-declared 500 CD-ROMs and one Pentium III computer required separate valuation and reassessment.

Analysis: The undeclared goods could not be treated as included in the declared invoices when the record showed that they had not been declared at the time of filing the bills of entry. Separate valuation was therefore required. However, the proper assessable value had to be worked out on the basis of the Chartered Engineer's certificate, and the consequential fine and penalty had to be re-quantified according to law after reassessment.

Conclusion: Separate valuation was warranted and the matter required re-quantification of assessable value, redemption fine and penalty.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only to the extent of restricting valuation and monetary consequences in respect of the covered imports, while confiscation for unauthorised import was maintained; one matter required remand for fresh quantification.

Ratio Decidendi: Declared import value cannot be rejected without legally sustainable grounds, but unauthorised import in breach of the import policy remains liable to confiscation, with monetary penalties to be confined in accordance with the established proportional approach.

---