Customs valuation requires independent evidence; extrapolation from another consignment and retracted statements were insufficient.

Customs valuation demands require independent, corroborative evidence specific to the import under adjudication; transaction value cannot be displaced by extrapolation from another consignment. Rejection of declared value on the basis of an earlier overseas enquiry, without direct material for the subject Bill of Entry, was unsustainable. Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, when retracted and unsupported by the procedure under Section 138B or other independent evidence, could not by themselves prove misdeclaration or undervaluation. On that footing, the demand and penalties were not maintainable and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand of customs duty and penalties could be sustained on the basis of extrapolation from an earlier consignment without independent evidence for the subject import. (ii) Whether the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, unsupported by the procedure under Section 138B of the Customs Act and later retracted, could by themselves sustain the allegation of misdeclaration and undervaluation.

Issue (i): Whether the demand of customs duty and penalties could be sustained on the basis of extrapolation from an earlier consignment without independent evidence for the subject import.

Analysis: The subject Bill of Entry was treated as involving identical goods and the earlier overseas enquiry was applied mutatis mutandis. The record, however, showed no independent investigation or direct material evidence specific to the subject import. The demand was therefore founded on extrapolation from another consignment and not on evidence relating to the import under dispute. In matters of valuation, each import is to be assessed on its own evidence, and transaction value cannot be displaced merely because another consignment was found undervalued.

Conclusion: The demand and penalties could not be sustained on extrapolation alone and were liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, unsupported by the procedure under Section 138B of the Customs Act and later retracted, could by themselves sustain the allegation of misdeclaration and undervaluation.

Analysis: The statements were relied upon as admissions, but they were subsequently retracted and were not supported by independent corroborative material. The impugned order also did not satisfactorily deal with the supplier invoices and declarations produced by the appellants. In the absence of valid supporting evidence, the invoice value could not be rejected arbitrarily, and the allegation of undervaluation required proof beyond the retracted statements alone.

Conclusion: The statements, standing by themselves, were insufficient to uphold the allegations of misdeclaration and undervaluation.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order could not be sustained and the appeals succeeded with consequential relief to the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: A customs valuation demand cannot rest on extrapolation from another consignment or on retracted statements alone; rejection of declared transaction value requires independent, corroborative evidence specific to the import under adjudication.

---