Assessable value revision alone does not justify fine or penalty where the importer's bona fides and transacted value are accepted.

When assessable value of imported goods was revised upward on the basis of identical imports and post-contract price movement, fine and penalty were not justified because the importer's transacted value was not doubted and its bona fides remained unchallenged. The mere enhancement of assessable value, without evidence of misdeclaration, bad faith, or other culpable conduct, was insufficient to sustain penal consequences. The Revenue's objection to the omission of fine and penalty was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether fine and penalty were exigible when the assessable value of imported goods was revised upward on the basis of identical imports, but the importer's bona fides and transacted value were not doubted.

Analysis: The order recorded that the assessable value was to be determined with reference to identical imports during the relevant period and that the prices had risen after the contract. It also noted that the importer's transacted value was not doubted and that the bona fides of the importer were not in question. In these circumstances, the mere upward revision of assessable value did not by itself justify the imposition of fine or penalty.

Conclusion: Fine and penalty were not warranted; the Revenue's objection to their omission was rejected.

---