Declared transaction value and sequential customs valuation require corroborated evidence; inadmissible electronic material cannot sustain demand, confiscation or penalties.

Declared transaction value under Customs valuation rules can be rejected only on objective, admissible and corroborated evidence; unverified electronic data and uncorroborated statements were treated as insufficient to displace the declared price. Where rejection is permitted, re-determination must follow the mandatory sequential scheme in the Valuation Rules and cannot rest on arbitrary kilogram-based rates. The commentary also notes that electronic evidence requires statutory compliance under Section 138C, and disputed statements without cross-examination lack probative value. On that basis, the extended limitation period, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties were considered unsustainable, with complete substantive relief recorded for the appellants.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether rejection of the declared transaction value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 was legally sustainable; (ii) whether re-determination of value followed the mandatory sequential scheme under the Valuation Rules; (iii) whether electronic records and statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were admissible and sufficient; (iv) whether the duty demand and invocation of the extended period under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 were sustainable; (v) whether confiscation and penalties under the Customs Act, 1962 were justified.

Issue (i): Whether rejection of the declared transaction value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 was legally sustainable.

Analysis: Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 3(1) of the Valuation Rules make transaction value the primary basis of valuation, and Rule 12 permits rejection only on objective reasons to doubt the declared value. The evidentiary basis relied upon by the Revenue consisted of unverified electronic data and uncorroborated statements, without proof of extra consideration or reliable contemporaneous comparables. The material showed suspicion, not legally sustainable proof of undervaluation.

Conclusion: The rejection of transaction value was held to be unsustainable and was decided in favour of the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether re-determination of value followed the mandatory sequential scheme under the Valuation Rules.

Analysis: Rule 3(2) requires sequential application of Rules 4 to 9 once declared value is rejected. The adjudicating authority adopted standardized kilogram-based rates without first applying the prescribed sequence or establishing strict comparability of identical or similar goods. The method used was arbitrary, unsupported by authenticated evidence, and inconsistent with the statutory valuation framework.

Conclusion: The re-determination of value was held contrary to the Valuation Rules and was set aside in favour of the appellants.

Issue (iii): Whether electronic records and statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were admissible and sufficient.

Analysis: Section 138C of the Customs Act, 1962 mandates compliance for admissibility of electronic evidence, including certification and proof of source, integrity and extraction. No such statutory compliance was shown, the electronic material was not properly authenticated, and complete relied upon records were not supplied. The statements were disputed, uncorroborated, and cross-examination was denied, violating natural justice. The electronic data and statements therefore lacked probative value.

Conclusion: The electronic records and statements were held inadmissible and insufficient to sustain the allegations.

Issue (iv): Whether the duty demand and invocation of the extended period under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 were sustainable.

Analysis: The show cause notice was issued beyond the normal period, so the extended period could survive only on proof of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression with intent to evade duty. Since the foundational evidence of undervaluation failed and the imports were made through regular Bills of Entry with contemporaneous assessment, the ingredients for extended limitation were not established. The demand was also affected by unexplained delay and absence of evidence of deliberate evasion.

Conclusion: The demand was held barred by limitation and unsustainable.

Issue (v): Whether confiscation and penalties under the Customs Act, 1962 were justified.

Analysis: Confiscation under Section 111(m) requires a proved misdeclaration, which was not established once the valuation case failed. Redemption fine was consequential to confiscation and could not survive independently. Penalties under Sections 112, 114A and 114AA required proof of culpable conduct, suppression or knowing use of false material, none of which was shown. The separate penalty on the individual noticee also lacked independent evidentiary basis.

Conclusion: Confiscation, redemption fine and penalties were held unsustainable and were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order failed on merits, on admissibility of evidence, on limitation, and on the consequential penal and confiscatory findings; the appellants obtained complete substantive relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Declared transaction value can be rejected only on objective, admissible and corroborated evidence, and any re-determination must strictly follow the sequential valuation scheme; inadmissible electronic material and uncorroborated statements cannot sustain undervaluation, limitation, confiscation or penalties.

---