Invoice value cannot be rejected without reliable evidence of undervaluation from comparable contemporaneous imports.

The invoice value of imported goods cannot be rejected or enhanced unless customs produce reliable evidence of undervaluation from genuine contemporaneous imports of comparable goods. Here, the comparison document concerned laces rather than ribbons, so its probative value was doubtful and insufficient to support enhancement. In the absence of credible evidence displacing the declared invoice value, the basis for enhancement was not established and the consequential orders of confiscation, redemption fine and penalty could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessable value of the imported goods could be enhanced on the basis of the relied upon import documents and whether the invoice value was liable to be rejected.

Analysis: The Revenue did not adduce evidence sufficient to displace the invoice value. The original authority itself noted the absence of proper evidence of importation of similar goods at a higher value. The document relied upon for comparison described the goods as laces, and its probative value was doubtful for treating it as contemporaneous evidence for ribbons. In the absence of reliable evidence of undervaluation, the basis for enhancement of assessable value was not established.

Conclusion: The enhancement of assessable value was unjustified and the orders of confiscation, redemption fine and penalty could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned orders were set aside with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: The invoice value of imported goods cannot be rejected or enhanced unless the customs authorities produce reliable evidence of undervaluation based on genuine contemporaneous imports of comparable goods.

---