Import misdeclaration requires evidence and a valid valuation basis; unsupported enhancement cannot sustain redemption fine or penalty.

Redemption fine and penalty for alleged import misdeclaration require proof that the importer misdeclared quantity or value and, for redemption fine, determination of market price and margin of profit. Supplier documents supported the declared quantity, with no evidence that the importer ordered excess goods or suppressed quantity. The value enhancement relied on assessment practice rather than specific contemporaneous import data or an identified valuation rule. As misdeclaration under the Customs Act was not established and the required basis for redemption fine was absent, the fine and penalty were unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether redemption fine and penalty could be imposed for alleged misdeclaration arising from excess quantity and enhancement of the assessable value of imported goods.

Analysis: The supplier's invoice and packing list supported the declared quantity, and there was no evidence that the importer had ordered the excess goods or deliberately suppressed their quantity. The valuation adopted by the department was also inconsistent: although a comparable bill of entry reflected a different price, enhancement was made on the basis of assessment practice without specific contemporaneous import data or a stated valuation rule. The authorities had not established misdeclaration attracting confiscation. Further, redemption fine requires a determination of market price and margin of profit; neither was determined on the record.

Conclusion: The alleged excess quantity and enhanced value did not establish misdeclaration under Sections 111(l) or 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The redemption fine and penalty under Section 112(a)(ii) were unsustainable.

---