Declared import value cannot be enhanced without evidence, proper valuation procedure, and natural justice.

Declared import value cannot be rejected or enhanced without contemporaneous evidence of undervaluation, compliance with the prescribed valuation procedure, and observance of natural justice. The lower authority bore the burden of justifying departure from the declared transaction value, but no comparable import evidence was produced. Enhancement was also made without a show-cause notice or personal hearing, rendering the process procedurally defective and contrary to Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The enhancement was therefore held invalid and the first appellate authority's order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the enhancement of the declared import value without contemporaneous import evidence, without issuing a show-cause notice, and without granting an opportunity of hearing was valid.

Analysis: The declared transaction value was enhanced without any evidence of comparable contemporaneous imports. The burden to justify rejection of the declared value lay on the lower authority. The absence of a show-cause notice and personal hearing amounted to breach of natural justice. The rejection of the transaction value was also found to be contrary to the prescribed procedure under Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.

Conclusion: The enhancement of value was invalid and the order of the first appellate authority was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Declared import value cannot be rejected and enhanced without evidence of undervaluation, adherence to the prescribed valuation procedure, and observance of natural justice.

---