Transaction value cannot be rejected on NIDB data alone, while a port-restriction breach may still justify limited penalty.

Declared transaction value cannot be rejected on the basis of NIDB data or non-contemporaneous import references unless legally sustainable comparable evidence is produced; on these facts, value enhancement was set aside. Non-affixation of MRP/RSP on the packages was treated as a curable defect and did not justify confiscation or penal action under the packaged commodities regime. Import through a port that was restricted during the relevant period did amount to a customs violation and attracted penalty, but only to a limited extent, with the remaining fine and penalties unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the declared value of the imported goods could be rejected and enhanced on the basis of NIDB data and non-contemporaneous import details; (ii) whether absence of MRP/RSP affixation on the packages rendered the goods liable for adverse action; and (iii) whether import through a non-designated port justified penalty and confiscation.

Issue (i): whether the declared value of the imported goods could be rejected and enhanced on the basis of NIDB data and non-contemporaneous import details

Analysis: The declared transaction value can be displaced only on the basis of legally sustainable material. Enhancement based merely on other importers' declared values, without disclosure of the relied-upon Bills of Entry and without showing contemporaneous comparability, is not sufficient. The imported consignments relied upon by the department were from a different period, and no material was produced to show that any amount over and above the invoice value had been paid. NIDB data by itself was held insufficient for re-determination of value.

Conclusion: The enhancement of value was not sustainable and was set aside.

Issue (ii): whether absence of MRP/RSP affixation on the packages rendered the goods liable for adverse action

Analysis: The defect relating to non-affixation of MRP/RSP was treated as curable. In the facts found, it did not amount to a substantive contravention warranting confiscation or other penal consequence under the packaged commodities regime.

Conclusion: The absence of MRP/RSP affixation did not justify the confiscatory action sustained by the lower authorities.

Issue (iii): whether import through a non-designated port justified penalty and confiscation

Analysis: The import through Tuticorin port was contrary to the port restriction in force during the relevant period. That violation attracted consequence under the customs law, even though the port was later authorized for such imports. However, the breach was limited to that aspect and did not sustain the entire fine and penalties imposed below.

Conclusion: Penalty was justified for the port restriction violation, but only to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000 under the customs provision applied by the Tribunal, with the remaining fine and penalties set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the valuation and packaging objections, but failed on the port-restriction violation to the limited extent of the reduced penalty, resulting in partial relief to the importer.

Ratio Decidendi: Rejection of transaction value cannot rest solely on NIDB data or non-contemporaneous import references without reliable comparable evidence, and a technical defect such as missing MRP/RSP marking is curable; however, import in breach of a subsisting port restriction can still attract limited penal consequence.

---