Declared import value cannot be rejected without a valid basis and mandatory pre-rejection notice under valuation rules.

Declared import value cannot be rejected unless the valuation record provides a consistent and legally sustainable basis, and the importer is first informed in writing of the grounds for doubting the truth or accuracy of the declared value under Rule 10A(2). Here, contemporaneous data on identical or similar goods was available, but the rejection rested on an incorrect factual premise and internally inconsistent reasoning, while the required written notice was not issued. The valuation exercise was therefore held unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside with remand for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the declared transaction value of the imported goods could be rejected on the facts found by the adjudicating authority. (ii) Whether the absence of written notice under Rule 10A(2) vitiated the rejection of value.

Issue (i): Whether the declared transaction value of the imported goods could be rejected on the facts found by the adjudicating authority.

Analysis: The material on record showed that contemporaneous import data of identical or similar goods was available, but the adjudicating authority proceeded on an incorrect factual premise that such data could not be found. The reasoning in the order was also found to be internally inconsistent, since quotations were said not to be the basis for rejection of value but were nevertheless used for redetermination. The importer had supplied the particulars sought for valuation, and the rejection of the declared value was therefore not supported by a consistent or valid basis.

Conclusion: The rejection and re-determination of the declared value could not be sustained on the existing record.

Issue (ii): Whether the absence of written notice under Rule 10A(2) vitiated the rejection of value.

Analysis: Rule 10A(2) required the importer to be informed in writing of the grounds for doubting the truth or accuracy of the declared value before the value could be rejected. No such notice had been issued. In the absence of compliance with this procedural requirement, the declared transaction value could not be rejected unless supported by other valid reasons established in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The absence of the required notice rendered the valuation exercise unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Declared import value cannot be rejected without a legally sustainable basis and compliance with the mandatory pre-rejection notice requirement under the valuation rules.

---