Transaction value rejection for imports upheld by majority on contemporaneous import evidence and uniform valuation guidance.

Declared transaction value for imported PU coated fabrics was considered rejectable where contemporaneous import instances, NIDB data and Mumbai Customs House guidance supported a higher assessable value. The majority found sufficient comparable evidence to justify enhancement, also noting that the importer accepted the reassessment and paid duty without protest. The dissent considered that the Revenue had not shown an adequate basis to discard the transaction value and that enhancement was not properly supported on the record.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared transaction value of imported PU coated fabrics could be rejected and the assessable value enhanced on the basis of contemporaneous imports, NIDB data and the Mumbai Customs House guidelines.

Analysis: The majority held that enhancement of value was justified where the department produced contemporaneous import instances showing comparable assessments at different ports, along with the Mumbai Customs House letter used for uniform valuation. It was noted that the importer had accepted the enhanced assessment and paid duty without protest, and that the record contained sufficient material to support rejection of the declared value. The earlier order relied upon by the Revenue was treated as supporting the same approach where comparable evidence existed.

Conclusion: The declared transaction value was validly rejected and the enhanced assessable value was sustainable; the Revenue's appeal succeeded before the majority.

Dissenting Opinion: The dissent held that the Commissioner (Appeals) had rightly found no adequate basis for rejecting the transaction value, and that the Revenue had not shown sufficient evidence to sustain the enhancement. On that view, the appeal deserved rejection.

---