Transaction value cannot be rejected without reliable undervaluation evidence; MRP-based confiscation needs proof of pre-packaged retail goods.

Transaction value could not be rejected on a mere comparison with alleged raw-material prices where the department failed to prove the source, nature, or relevance of that data, and produced no evidence of comparable imports or disclosed comparable wholesale sales; the enhanced valuation, duty demand, confiscation under Section 111(m), and related penalty were therefore unsustainable. Confiscation under Section 111(d) for non-declaration of MRP could not be finally sustained without a finding that the imported goods were pre-packaged commodities imported for retail sale; that issue was remitted for fresh adjudication on the limited factual question of MRP applicability.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the declared transaction value could be rejected and the goods valued upward on the basis of the alleged price of raw materials, resulting in confiscation under Section 111(m) and consequential duty and penalty; (ii) Whether confiscation under Section 111(d) for non-declaration of MRP could be sustained without a finding that the imported goods were pre-packaged commodities meant for retail sale.

Issue (i): Whether the declared transaction value could be rejected and the goods valued upward on the basis of the alleged price of raw materials, resulting in confiscation under Section 111(m) and consequential duty and penalty.

Analysis: The declared description of the goods was found to be correct on examination. The sole basis for rejecting value was that the per kilogram price was allegedly lower than the price of raw materials. The department, however, did not establish whether the raw-material prices relied upon were Indian or Chinese prices, did not show the source of such data, and did not place any evidence of the manufacturing cost in the country of origin. The rejection of transaction value also lacked evidence of contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods at a higher price. Mere acceptance by the importer during investigation did not, by itself, justify a finding of under-valuation. The valuation under Rule 7 was also unsupported by a disclosed basis of comparable wholesale sales.

Conclusion: The declared transaction value could not be rejected, the duty demand based on enhanced value was unsustainable, and confiscation under Section 111(m) with the related penalty could not be upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscation under Section 111(d) for non-declaration of MRP could be sustained without a finding that the imported goods were pre-packaged commodities meant for retail sale.

Analysis: The requirement to declare MRP under Note 5(e) applies to pre-packaged commodities imported for sale to ultimate consumers. The record contained no clear finding whether the goods were imported in bulk pack or in pre-packaged form. Without that factual determination, the applicability of the MRP requirement, and therefore the legality of confiscation under Section 111(d), could not be decided finally.

Conclusion: The issue under Section 111(d) required fresh adjudication on the limited factual question whether the goods were pre-packaged commodities attracting the MRP requirement.

Final Conclusion: The valuation-related demand, confiscation under Section 111(m), and the connected penalty were set aside, while the question of confiscation under Section 111(d) was remitted for de novo consideration on the limited issue of MRP applicability.

Ratio Decidendi: Transaction value cannot be rejected without reliable evidence of undervaluation based on the country of origin and comparable imports, and MRP-based confiscation applies only where the imported goods are pre-packaged commodities meant for retail sale.

---