Customs valuation and penalties upheld where declared CIF value was rejected for undervaluation and restricted goods were imported without licence.

Declared CIF value may be rejected where market inquiry and customs valuation rules support reassessment, and enhanced redemption fine and penalty may also be sustained where restricted goods are imported without the required licence and the importer shows repeated undervaluation. On the recorded facts, the appellate authority found no infirmity in the valuation basis or in the increased fine and penalty, particularly as the importer had waived notice at adjudication and did not pursue the appeal despite opportunities. The challenge therefore failed and the appellate order was left intact.

---

---

Issues: Whether the enhancement of the declared CIF value and the enhancement of redemption fine and penalty in respect of the imported goods called for interference.

Analysis: The appellant had waived notice at the adjudication stage and did not appear before the appellate authority despite opportunities. The impugned order recorded reasons for rejecting the declared value, including market inquiry and the valuation basis adopted under the customs valuation rules, and also recorded that the goods were restricted and imported without the necessary licence. The appellate authority further relied on the appellant's repeated violations and under-valuation in sustaining the enhanced penalty and fine. On these facts, no infirmity was found in the order warranting appellate interference.

Conclusion: The enhancement of value, redemption fine and penalty was upheld, and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were rejected, leaving the order of the appellate authority intact.

---