Undervaluation penalty cannot rest on a price list alone where actual import evidence is absent.

A mere price list, without evidence of actual import transactions at those prices, was held insufficient to sustain a penalty for alleged undervaluation under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. In the valuation dispute concerning imported LPG conversion kits, the penalty was not justified because the enhancement of value rested only on the price list, while the record also noted that the importer had not redeemed the goods and had suffered financial loss. The confiscation was sustained, but the penalty was deleted, granting relief only against the penal part of the adjudication.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged gross undervaluation of imported goods was liable to be set aside.

Analysis: The penalty arose from a valuation dispute concerning imported LPG conversion kits. The basis for enhancement of value was only a price list and not evidence of actual imports at those prices. The order records that a price list by itself is not proof of import value, and that the appellant did not redeem the goods and had suffered financial loss. In these circumstances, the justification for continuing the penalty was not accepted.

Conclusion: The penalty was set aside and the appeal was allowed in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The order sustained confiscation but deleted the penalty, giving the appellant relief only against the penal part of the adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere price list, without evidence of actual import transactions at the stated prices, is insufficient to sustain a penalty for undervaluation under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.

---