Declared import value and OGL importability: valuation needs concrete comparable evidence, and freely importable glassware needs no special licence.

Declared import value may be rejected only on concrete evidence of contemporaneous imports of similar goods of like kind and quality; it cannot be displaced on assumptions or surmises, and the valuation under Rules 6 and 8 was therefore unsustainable. The glassware issue turned on tariff classification and licensing: goods described as glassware and falling under Exim Code 701331.00 were freely importable under OGL, so a special import licence was not required. The commentary states that the impugned order was set aside and consequential relief followed in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the declared value of the imported telephones and related goods could be rejected and valuation made under Rule 6 and Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 in the absence of evidence of contemporaneous imports of similar goods; (ii) Whether the impugned glassware required a special import licence or was freely importable under OGL.

Issue (i): Whether the declared value of the imported telephones and related goods could be rejected and valuation made under Rule 6 and Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 in the absence of evidence of contemporaneous imports of similar goods.

Analysis: The valuation adopted by the adjudicating authority was based on rejection of the importer's declared value and resort to alternative valuation methods. Such rejection required concrete and cogent evidence of higher contemporaneous imports of similar goods of like kind and quality. No such evidence was produced, and the value could not be dislodged on assumptions or surmises. The method of valuation, therefore, was not in accordance with the prescribed rules.

Conclusion: The rejection of the declared value and the valuation made under Rule 6 and Rule 8 were unsustainable and the finding was against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned glassware required a special import licence or was freely importable under OGL.

Analysis: The goods were properly described in the Bill of Entry, and the invoice enclosed with it described them as glassware. The absence of the expression "of lead crystal" did not change the declared description. On the licensing aspect, the goods fell under Exim Code 701331.00 and were freely importable under OGL. The conclusion that a special import licence was required was incorrect.

Conclusion: The glassware did not require a special import licence and the finding was in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Declared import value can be rejected only on the basis of concrete evidence of contemporaneous imports of similar goods, and goods falling within a freely importable tariff classification cannot be subjected to a special import licence requirement without legal basis.

---