Undervaluation by importers: contemporaneous invoices prevailed over unproven credit notes, with penalties upheld and fine partly reduced.

Genuine contemporaneous import invoices were treated as the correct basis for assessable value where the claimed lower price rested only on unsubstantiated credit notes and lacked reliable evidence of renegotiation or commercial correspondence. On that footing, the higher invoice values were accepted, the import licences were properly debited on the ascertained value, and the undervaluation finding remained intact. The redemption fine was moderated in some matters because of the lapse of time and adjudication delay, but the penalties were upheld because the record showed deliberate mis-declaration and attempted duty evasion.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the declared invoice values of the imported consignments should be accepted or the higher values shown in the invoices recovered from the foreign supplier were the true assessable values; (ii) whether the licences were correctly debited on the ascertained value; and (iii) whether the redemption fines and penalties called for interference.

Issue (i): Whether the declared invoice values of the imported consignments should be accepted or the higher values shown in the invoices recovered from the foreign supplier were the true assessable values.

Analysis: The material on record showed that the invoices recovered from the foreign supplier were genuine contemporaneous documents and that the plea of subsequent credit notes reducing the price was not supported by reliable evidence of the underlying contracts, renegotiations, or encashment of the credit notes. The surrounding circumstances, including the seizure of one invoice from the importer's office, the absence of regular commercial correspondence, and the unexplained documentary pattern, justified rejection of the claimed lower values. The plea of violation of natural justice was not accepted because the relied-upon documents had been made available at one stage or another.

Conclusion: The true assessable values were the values shown in the invoices recovered from the foreign supplier, and the declared values were rightly rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the licences were correctly debited on the ascertained value.

Analysis: Since the higher invoice values were held to represent the true values of the goods, debit of the licences on that basis was consistent with the governing import-control position.

Conclusion: The licences were correctly debited on the ascertained value, and no interference was warranted on this count.

Issue (iii): Whether the redemption fines and penalties called for interference.

Analysis: The findings on undervaluation were sustained, but the quantum of redemption fine required moderation having regard to the long lapse of time, the delay in adjudication, and the practical burden on the importers. The penalties, however, were justified because the conduct disclosed deliberate mis-declaration and attempted evasion of duty.

Conclusion: The redemption fines were reduced in three appeals and otherwise sustained, while the penalties were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only to the limited extent of reduction of redemption fines in three matters, and the remaining findings of undervaluation, licence debit, and penalties were affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where genuine contemporaneous import invoices show a higher price and the alleged price reductions through credit notes are not proved by reliable commercial evidence, the higher invoice value is the correct assessable value and subsequent credit notes may be treated as an afterthought.

---