Customs valuation must rest on proper reasons and comparable data; transaction value rejection was not sustained and the matter was remanded.

Declared transaction value could not be rejected merely because the manufacturer's invoice was not produced; rejection under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 required adequate reasons supported by the record. Contemporaneous import data also could not justify re-determination unless comparability was properly analysed on quality, quantity, timing and other relevant factors, especially where the goods were treated as branded. As the impugned valuation order repeated a cryptic approach and failed to address these requirements, the valuation findings were not sustainable on the record. The matter was remanded to the original authority for fresh decision after considering all issues and affording the appellant due opportunity.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared transaction value could be rejected and the assessable value re-determined on the basis of NIDB data and alleged non-production of the manufacturer's invoice, and whether the valuation order required interference.

Analysis: The lower orders did not record adequate reasons for rejecting the declared value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. Non-production of the manufacturer's invoice by itself was held insufficient to reject transaction value. If the goods were treated as branded, comparison had to be made with similar branded goods, and the contemporaneous import data relied upon was found to lack proper analysis of comparability in terms of quality, quantity, timing, and other relevant parameters required for valuation under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The impugned order also repeated the same cryptic approach that had been noticed in the original order.

Conclusion: The valuation findings could not be sustained on the record as examined, and the matter was remanded to the original authority for fresh decision after considering all issues and granting due opportunity to the appellant.

---