Import valuation dispute: a release-at-duty offer did not amount to waiver, and unsupported value loading could not sustain confiscation or penalty.

An importer's statement made to secure release of goods was treated as a practical step and not as an unconditional acceptance of the enhanced assessable value, so it did not bar a challenge to valuation in appeal. In the absence of independent evidence supporting rejection of the declared transaction value or the loading adopted by the Commissioner, the valuation-based confiscation and the consequential redemption fine and penalty could not be sustained on the material relied upon. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on valuation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the importer's statement during hearing amounted to acceptance of the enhanced assessable value so as to preclude a challenge in appeal, and whether the valuation, confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty could be sustained without supporting evidence.

Analysis: The importer had consistently disputed the proposed enhancement and sought acceptance of the declared transaction value. The offer to clear the goods on payment of duty at the enhanced figure was treated as a practical step to obtain release, not as abandonment of the challenge to valuation. Once that alleged acceptance was not treated as binding, the order disclosed no independent evidence to justify rejection of the declared value or the loading adopted by the Commissioner. In such circumstances, the valuation-based confiscation and consequential penalty could not be sustained on the material relied upon in the order.

Conclusion: The enhanced valuation and the consequential confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty were not upheld; the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on valuation.

---