Customs valuation must be reconsidered when transaction-value evidence was overlooked and the plea was actually raised.

Customs valuation of imported machines under Section 14 and the valuation rules required fresh consideration because the record showed the importer had in fact raised the relevant transaction-value plea before the Commissioner and placed supporting material on record. The earlier authorities proceeded on the mistaken assumption that this contention had not been urged, and the valuation was treated on a best-judgment basis under Rule 8. The adverse valuation findings were set aside and the matter was remitted for reconsideration on the merits, with liberty to advance all available submissions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the customs valuation adopted by the Commissioner required interference and the matter had to be remitted for fresh determination.

Analysis: The dispute concerned valuation of imported machines under Section 14 of the Customs Act and the valuation rules. The importer asserted that the transaction value was ascertainable from the material placed before the Commissioner, including the claim that payment for the machines was made later through banking channels, whereas the Department proceeded on a best-judgment basis under Rule 8. The earlier authority and the Tribunal proceeded on the mistaken premise that the relevant contention and supporting material had not been urged before the Commissioner. As the record indicated that the plea was in fact raised and material was placed before the adjudicating authority, the valuation exercise required reconsideration.

Conclusion: The valuation order could not be sustained as it stood and the matter was remitted to the CESTAT for fresh determination, with liberty to the appellant to advance all available submissions.

Final Conclusion: The adverse valuation findings were set aside and the dispute was sent back for reconsideration on the merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a valuation order is founded on an erroneous assumption that a material contention was not raised, and relevant evidence may bear on the ascertainment of transaction value, the matter must be remitted for fresh consideration.

---