Declared transaction value under customs valuation cannot be rejected on mere suspicion; stale imports are not contemporaneous comparables.

Declared transaction value of imported silk fabrics cannot be rejected under Rule 10A of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988 unless the department shows concrete, case-specific material creating reasonable doubt about truth or accuracy. Mere suspicion based on past conduct, without incriminating documents, admission of under-invoicing, or proof that the declared prices matched relied-upon imports, is insufficient. Imports separated by six to twelve months were not contemporaneous comparable imports, especially where the price of silk fabrics was shown to fluctuate over time. On these facts, rejection of value was unjustified and the demand, confiscation and penalties were unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared transaction value of imported silk fabrics could be rejected under Rule 10A of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988 and enhanced on the basis of other imports, and whether the resulting demand, confiscation and penalties were sustainable.

Analysis: Rule 10A permits rejection of the declared value only where there is a concrete basis for reasonable doubt about the truth or accuracy of the transaction value. Mere suspicion arising from the past conduct of the importer or the foreign supplier is insufficient. The record showed no incriminating documents from the appellant's premises, no admission of under-invoicing, and no proof that the appellant's declared prices matched the prices in the other cases relied upon by the department. The comparative imports were also spread over a time gap of six to twelve months, and the price of silk fabrics was shown to fluctuate over time. On these facts, the imports could not be treated as contemporaneous comparable imports for rejecting the declared value. The order also did not establish that the case fell within the exceptions to acceptance of transaction value under Rule 4(2).

Conclusion: The rejection of the declared transaction value was not justified, and the demand of duty, confiscation of goods and penalties were unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Declared transaction value of imported goods cannot be rejected under Rule 10A unless the department establishes concrete, case-specific material creating reasonable doubt, and stale or time-distant imports cannot be treated as contemporaneous comparable imports for valuation.

---