Declared transaction value cannot be rejected solely on LME prices without corroborative import evidence.

Misdeclaration of quantity in imported copper scrap was established where the excess quantity was admitted and the explanation of inadvertent shipment by the foreign supplier was rejected as unsupported. The declared transaction value could not be discarded merely on the basis of London Metal Exchange quotations; in the absence of corroborative evidence such as contemporaneous imports of identical goods at a higher price, enhancement was not justified. On that basis, redemption fine and penalties were reduced, and the penalty on the individual appellant was deleted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported copper scrap was misdeclared in quantity. (ii) Whether the declared value could be rejected and enhanced merely on the basis of London Metal Exchange prices, and the consequential relief on redemption fine and penalties.

Issue (i): Whether the imported copper scrap was misdeclared in quantity.

Analysis: The excess quantity was admitted, and the plea that it had been shipped by mistake by the foreign supplier was rejected. The revised invoices and correspondence were found to have emerged only after the investigating agency had started action, and no satisfactory explanation was offered for the alleged inadvertent despatch of such a large excess.

Conclusion: Misdeclaration of quantity was established against the importer.

Issue (ii): Whether the declared value could be rejected and enhanced merely on the basis of London Metal Exchange prices, and the consequential relief on redemption fine and penalties.

Analysis: The declared transaction value could not be discarded solely because of LME quotations in the absence of corroborative evidence such as contemporaneous imports of identical goods at a higher price. Since no such supporting material was shown, enhancement of value was not justified. As a consequence, the redemption fine and penalties required reduction, and the penalty on the second appellant was not sustainable.

Conclusion: The value enhancement was set aside, the redemption fine and the first appellant's penalty were reduced, and the second appellant's penalty was deleted.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were allowed in part: the finding of misdeclaration in quantity was sustained, but the valuation enhancement failed, leading to reduction of the redemption fine and penalty and deletion of the penalty on the individual appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of corroborative evidence of contemporaneous imports or other reliable material, declared transaction value cannot be rejected merely on the basis of LME prices.

---