Transaction value and confiscation penalties failed where NIDB data lacked comparability and packaging defects were cured under supervision.

Transaction value could not be rejected and enhanced merely on NIDB data unless contemporaneous imports were shown to be reliably comparable through cogent evidence; the declared value therefore remained operative and the differential duty demand failed. Alleged labelling and packaging defects did not justify confiscation, redemption fine or penalty where the goods had been repacked and relabelled under supervision, tested, and certified in compliance with judicial directions, so the basis for confiscation no longer survived and the consequential penalties were unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside in full.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the declared assessable value could be rejected and the value enhanced solely on the basis of NIDB data, and whether the differential duty demand could survive. (ii) Whether confiscation of the imported goods and the consequent redemption fine and penalty were sustainable for alleged labelling and packaging violations under the food adulteration regime.

Issue (i): Whether the declared assessable value could be rejected and the value enhanced solely on the basis of NIDB data, and whether the differential duty demand could survive.

Analysis: The value was enhanced without furnishing complete and comparable particulars of the relied-upon contemporaneous imports, such as country of origin, supplier identity, quantity and other relevant details. Mere reliance on NIDB data, without cogent evidence showing comparability with the subject goods, was held insufficient to reject the transaction value. The declared value could not be displaced on a speculative basis, and the sequential valuation method could not be invoked in the absence of legally sustainable grounds for rejection of the declared value.

Conclusion: The enhancement of value was unsustainable and the differential duty demand failed.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscation of the imported goods and the consequent redemption fine and penalty were sustainable for alleged labelling and packaging violations under the food adulteration regime.

Analysis: The alleged deficiencies in the package markings had been rectified pursuant to judicial directions permitting repacking and relabelling in the customs bonded area under official supervision, followed by testing and certification by the health authorities. Once the goods had been subjected to the directed corrective process and were released after compliance, the basis for treating the goods as liable to confiscation no longer survived. In that situation, the consequential fine and penalties also could not be sustained.

Conclusion: Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable in law and was set aside in its entirety, with consequential relief to follow.

Ratio Decidendi: Transaction value cannot be rejected and enhanced merely on the basis of NIDB data unless the department establishes reliable comparability through cogent evidence, and confiscation-based penalties cannot survive once the alleged defect has been rectified in terms of the governing directions.

---