Declared import value must rest on reliable contemporaneous evidence; unsupported comparison and suspicion cannot justify enhancement or penalties.

Declared import value could not be rejected where the department's comparison goods were not shown to be identical or similar in type, quality, use, origin, or timing of import, and the alleged supplier quotation and enquiry were not proved with reliable contemporaneous evidence. The transaction value therefore remained binding and the assessment had to proceed on the invoice price. Because the enhancement failed, the alleged misdeclaration ceased to exist and confiscation and penalties could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the declared assessable value of the imported cooling coils with expansion valve could be rejected on the basis of the department's materials. (ii) Whether confiscation and penalty could be sustained once the valuation enhancement was found unsustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the declared assessable value of the imported cooling coils with expansion valve could be rejected on the basis of the department's materials.

Analysis: The goods compared by the department were not identical or similar in nature, type, quality, use, country of origin, or timing of import, and therefore could not furnish contemporaneous evidence for rejection of the declared price. The foreign supplier's quotation was not proved with sufficient certainty, the alleged verification was not satisfactorily established, and the departmental note sheet showed only an intention to enquire, not a completed enquiry. The transaction value could not be displaced on assumptions or suspicion without cogent proof of undervaluation.

Conclusion: The declared invoice value could not be rejected, and assessment had to be made on the basis of the invoice price.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscation and penalty could be sustained once the valuation enhancement was found unsustainable.

Analysis: Confiscation and penalty were founded on the alleged misdeclaration arising from the rejected valuation. Once the enhancement of value was found unjustified and the declared value was accepted, the basis for invoking confiscation and imposing penalties ceased to survive.

Conclusion: Confiscation and penalties were not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The assessee's valuation was accepted, the consequential confiscation and penalties failed, and the departmental challenge to the assessment was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Declared import value cannot be rejected unless the department establishes undervaluation by reliable contemporaneous evidence of comparable goods, and suspicion or unverified material cannot replace proof.

---