Contemporaneous market evidence is required to enhance redemption fine and penalty on confiscated imports.

Enhancement of redemption fine and penalty for confiscated imported betel nuts requires contemporaneous evidence of a higher prevailing market value. Where the goods were liable to confiscation for violation of import policy, but the Revenue produced no evidence of higher import or sale prices and relied only on a general assertion that prices were higher elsewhere in the country, no legal basis existed to raise the assessed value or increase the consequential fine and penalty. The request for enhancement was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the redemption fine and penalty on confiscated imported betel nuts could be enhanced in the absence of contemporaneous evidence showing a higher market value.

Analysis: The goods were found liable to confiscation for violation of the import policy, but the request for enhancement of value, fine and penalty required proof of a higher prevailing market price. The Revenue did not produce contemporaneous evidence of higher import or sale value and merely asserted that a higher price prevailed in other parts of the country. In the absence of such evidence, no basis was made out for directing enhancement of the assessed value for fixing higher redemption fine and penalty.

Conclusion: The appeals for enhancement were rejected.

---