Customs valuation requires cogent evidence; NIDB data alone cannot justify rejection of transaction value.

Customs value under Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 must be based on the price actually paid or payable, and transaction value can be rejected only on clear and cogent evidence. For imported PU Coated Fabrics, mere reliance on NIDB data was insufficient because the goods varied in thickness and quality, and the record did not show reliable contemporaneous imports of comparable goods from the same source. In the absence of evidence on quality, quantity, origin, and time and place of import, Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 could not be invoked to enhance the declared value.

---

---

Issues: Whether the enhancement of the declared customs value of imported PU Coated Fabrics could be sustained merely on the basis of NIDB data and whether Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 was invocable in the absence of reliable evidence for rejection of transaction value.

Analysis: The value under Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 is to be based on the price actually paid or payable, and rejection of transaction value requires clear and cogent evidence. The declared goods were imported in different thicknesses and qualities, and their values varied accordingly. The record did not show any material of higher contemporaneous imports from the same source, and there was no allegation of misdeclaration. Mere reference to NIDB data, without supporting evidence relating to quality, quantity, country of origin, and time and place of import, was insufficient to reject the declared value. In these circumstances, the conditions for invoking Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 were not satisfied.

Conclusion: The enhancement of value based only on NIDB data was unsustainable and the declared transaction value could not be rejected on that basis. The impugned orders were set aside and the appeal was allowed.

---