Assessable value cannot rest on NIDB data alone when contemporaneous import evidence contradicts the proposed enhancement.

Assessable value of imported paraffin wax could not be enhanced merely on NIDB data where the importer produced contemporaneous Bills of Entry and manufacturer invoices, and no independent evidence showed payment of a higher price. Misdeclaration of description and value having already been upheld, confiscation remained justified in principle. However, the redemption fine and personal penalty were reduced as excessive, and one penalty was set aside because no adequate reasons were recorded for imposing it on the other appellant. The valuation enhancement was deleted, confiscation was sustained, and the relief was granted partly by reducing the monetary consequences.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the assessable value of the imported paraffin wax could be enhanced on the basis of NIDB data when the importer produced contemporaneous import documents and purchase evidence; (ii) whether the confiscation, redemption fine and penalties required to be sustained, and if so to what extent.

Issue (i): whether the assessable value of the imported paraffin wax could be enhanced on the basis of NIDB data when the importer produced contemporaneous import documents and purchase evidence.

Analysis: The earlier finding of misdeclaration having already been sustained, the remand was confined to determination of the correct assessable value. In the de novo proceedings, the adjudicating authority again relied mainly on NIDB data and rejected the importer's contemporaneous Bills of Entry and manufacturer's invoices showing imports of fully refined paraffin wax at lower prices. No additional evidence was shown to establish that the appellant had paid a higher consideration to the supplier. On that basis, enhancement of value was not justified.

Conclusion: The enhancement of assessable value was not sustained and the valuation was required to be reduced.

Issue (ii): whether the confiscation, redemption fine and penalties required to be sustained, and if so to what extent.

Analysis: The misdeclaration of description and value had already been upheld, so confiscation and penalty were justified in principle. However, as the dispute on valuation did not result in any short levy, the quantum of redemption fine and the personal penalty on one appellant was found excessive. No adequate reason was recorded for imposing penalty on the other appellant, whose role was not discussed in the impugned order.

Conclusion: Confiscation was sustained, the redemption fine and one penalty were reduced, and the other penalty was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were allowed in part, with deletion of the enhanced valuation, reduction of the redemption fine and one penalty, and full relief to the other appellant on penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Assessable value cannot be enhanced merely on NIDB data when the importer produces contemporaneous import evidence and no independent material shows payment of a higher price; confiscation and penalty may still stand where misdeclaration is established, but their quantum must be proportionate and supported by reasons.

---