Copper-predominant alloy not covered by nickel exemption; declared transaction value upheld for lack of contrary evidence.

Customs exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. was denied because nickel silver turnings were found to contain copper as the predominant constituent, so they were not nickel or articles of nickel. Section notes on alloy classification and predominance by weight prevailed over the tariff heading, and the mere placement of the goods in Chapter 75 did not extend the exemption. The declared transaction value was also accepted because no contemporaneous import evidence or other material justified rejection of that value or re-determination under the valuation rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) order was sustained and both appeals failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether nickel silver turnings containing copper as the predominant constituent were eligible for exemption under Serial No. 438 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. for "nickel and articles of nickel"; (ii) Whether the declared transaction value could be rejected and the assessable value re-determined.

Issue (i): Whether nickel silver turnings containing copper as the predominant constituent were eligible for exemption under Serial No. 438 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. for "nickel and articles of nickel".

Analysis: The exemption was available only to nickel and articles of nickel. The imported goods were tested and found to contain copper as the predominant element, with nickel only as one constituent of the alloy. In tariff classification, section notes governing alloys and predominance by weight prevailed over the tariff heading description. Since the goods were not nickel or an article of nickel on that basis, the notification could not be applied merely because the goods were listed under Chapter 75.

Conclusion: The goods were not entitled to exemption under Serial No. 438 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., and the assessee's claim failed on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the declared transaction value could be rejected and the assessable value re-determined.

Analysis: Rejection of transaction value requires supporting material showing why the declared value is unacceptable. On the record, no contemporaneous import evidence or other material was produced to dislodge the declared value, and the valuation rules could not be invoked in the absence of a legal basis for rejection of the transaction value.

Conclusion: The declared transaction value was rightly accepted and the Revenue's challenge to valuation failed.

Final Conclusion: The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was sustained, the exemption claim was rejected, and the valuation finding in favour of the importer was maintained, resulting in dismissal of both appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: For customs exemption and classification, the tariff heading cannot override the governing section and chapter notes, and an alloy is to be classified by the metal that predominates by weight; exemption from a notification confined to nickel or articles of nickel is unavailable where the goods are a copper-predominant alloy.

---