Declared value cannot be rejected for excess weight alone where unit-based imports match the invoice description and value evidence is absent.

Declared transaction value could not be rejected merely because imported unit-based goods were found to weigh more than the declared quantity, where the goods otherwise matched the bills of entry and there was no material showing excess remittance or any basis to treat the weight variation as affecting value. Filing an appeal against enhancement operated as a protest to the enhanced value, so prior acceptance did not bar challenge. On that footing, excess weight alone did not establish misdeclaration, and confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty were held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the excess weight found on examination of goods imported as unit-based articles justified rejection of the declared transaction value and the consequent confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty.

Analysis: The declared goods were found to correspond to the description in the bills of entry, and the dispute arose only because the physical weight exceeded the declared weight. The goods were purchased and sold on a unit basis, and there was no material showing any excess remittance over the invoice value or any basis to treat weight variation as affecting value. The filing of an appeal against enhancement was treated as a protest against the enhanced value, and the earlier acceptance of the enhanced value did not bar the challenge. In such circumstances, excess weight by itself could not sustain a finding of misdeclaration so as to justify confiscation and the consequential monetary penalties.

Conclusion: The declared value could not be rejected merely because of excess weight, and the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty were not sustainable. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---