Customs valuation: declared transaction value cannot be rejected on a single non-comparable import without cogent evidence of undervaluation.

Declared transaction value under customs law could not be rejected merely on the basis of a single comparable import, especially where the importer produced a supply agreement for wholesale quantity and evidence of the same goods imported from the same supplier at the same declared price. The authorities had not shown, on cogent evidence, that identical-goods value was unavailable or that the valuation rules were applied sequentially on a proper factual basis, and the relied-upon comparable was at a different commercial level and quantity bracket. In the absence of proof of false invoicing, flowback, or deliberate undervaluation, enhancement of value failed. Once revaluation failed, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty also could not stand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether enhancement of the assessable value of the imported goods on the basis of similar goods was sustainable under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. (ii) Whether confiscation of the goods and the consequential redemption fine and penalty were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether enhancement of the assessable value of the imported goods on the basis of similar goods was sustainable under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007.

Analysis: The declared value could not be rejected merely on the basis of a single comparable import of similar goods, particularly when the appellant placed on record a supply agreement covering a large wholesale quantity and undisputed imports of the same goods from the same supplier at the same declared value. The authorities below did not first establish that value of identical goods was unavailable or that the imported goods had to be revalued by moving sequentially through the valuation rules on a sound factual basis. The comparable relied upon was at a different commercial level and in a different quantity bracket, so it could not be treated as a proper benchmark without appropriate adjustments. The allegation of undervaluation was also not supported by independent evidence showing that the invoice price was false or that there was any flowback of extra consideration.

Conclusion: The enhancement of value was not sustainable and the declared transaction value ought to have been accepted.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscation of the goods and the consequential redemption fine and penalty were sustainable.

Analysis: Once the re-determination of value failed, the foundation for the finding of misdeclaration also fell. The record did not show any adverse finding from the first examination of the goods, and the discrepancy in invoice terms was satisfactorily explained by the supply arrangement and the supplier's clarification. In the absence of proof of undervaluation or deliberate misdeclaration, the statutory basis for confiscation and the consequential penal action was not made out.

Conclusion: Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the imported goods were to be assessed on the declared transaction value, with the consequential penal and confiscatory demands set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: In customs valuation, the declared transaction value cannot be discarded unless the Department establishes, by cogent contemporaneous evidence and sequential application of the valuation rules, that the invoice price is unacceptable; comparable imports must be truly comparable in commercial level and quantity, and undervaluation cannot rest on suspicion alone.

---