Transaction value cannot be rejected on NIDB data alone; restricted imports without licence still justify confiscation, with reduced penalty.

Transaction value of imported rough marble blocks could not be rejected merely on NIDB data and weekly average prices; absent independent evidence of contemporaneous imports of identical or comparable goods, the declared value had to be accepted. Import of the restricted goods without a valid licence nevertheless established contravention, so confiscation was justified. However, the redemption fine and penalty were reduced in view of the circumstances, giving the importer only partial relief by setting aside the value enhancement while sustaining the finding of unlawful import.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the declared transaction value of the imported rough marble blocks could be rejected and enhanced on the basis of NIDB data without independent evidence of contemporaneous imports of comparable goods; (ii) whether confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were sustainable where the goods were imported without the required licence.

Issue (i): Whether the declared transaction value of the imported rough marble blocks could be rejected and enhanced on the basis of NIDB data without independent evidence of contemporaneous imports of comparable goods.

Analysis: The declared value could be displaced only on the basis of tangible material showing that the invoice value was incorrect. Mere reliance on NIDB data and weekly average prices, without evidence of identical or comparable goods, quality, quantity, or contemporaneous imports, was insufficient. NIDB data was treated as secondary material and could not by itself justify rejection of the transaction value under the valuation rules.

Conclusion: The enhancement of value was not sustainable and the declared transaction value had to be accepted.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were sustainable where the goods were imported without the required licence.

Analysis: The imported goods were restricted and required a valid import licence. As no licence covered the present imports, contravention was established. On that count, confiscation was justified. However, considering the circumstances, the redemption fine and penalty required moderation.

Conclusion: Confiscation was upheld, while the redemption fine and penalty were reduced.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on valuation but failed on the illegality of import without licence, resulting in partial relief by setting aside the value enhancement and reducing the consequential fine and penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Transaction value of imported goods cannot be rejected or enhanced merely on the basis of NIDB data unless supported by independent evidence of comparable contemporaneous imports, while import of restricted goods without a valid licence justifies confiscation.

---