Overvaluation requires evidence, not subjective price comparison, and a penalty cannot stand without proof of inflated export value.

A mere difference between purchase price and export price was insufficient to establish that toothpaste consignments were overvalued. The department had no supporting material to prove that the declared export value was inflated, and the finding rested on subjective assumption rather than acceptable evidence. A higher export price or other commercial explanation could not be excluded on the record. The decision reaffirmed that the burden lay on the department to substantiate its allegation by evidence, and a valuation based only on an officer's personal view of what price difference was acceptable was arbitrary. The finding of overvaluation and the penalty were set aside as unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the export value declared for the consignments of toothpaste could be treated as overvalued and the resulting penalty sustained in the absence of supporting evidence.

Analysis: The department relied only on the difference between the purchase price and the export price and placed no material to show that the declared value was inflated. The finding of overvaluation rested on a subjective assumption rather than acceptable evidence. The possibility of a legitimate higher export price or other commercial reasons could not be ruled out, and it was for the department to establish its allegation by evidence. An assessment based merely on the officer's personal view of what difference in price was acceptable was held impermissible and arbitrary.

Conclusion: The finding of overvaluation and the penalty were set aside as unsustainable.

---