Transaction value under customs valuation cannot be rejected on unproved photocopies, doubtful price lists, or incomparable market data.

Declared transaction value of imported electronic balances could not be rejected under the customs valuation framework on the basis of unsigned photocopies, unauthenticated price lists, selective NIDB data or market enquiries. The Revenue failed to prove the source and authenticity of the documents, and the comparison data related to different classes of buyers at a different commercial level. Market enquiries were treated as only corroborative and insufficient by themselves to displace the declared invoice price. In the absence of reliable evidence of undervaluation or extra payment over the declared price, the duty demand, confiscation and penalties were held unsustainable and the appeals succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared transaction value of the imported electronic balances could be rejected on the basis of unsigned photocopies of invoices, unauthenticated price lists, NIDB data and market enquiries, and whether the resulting demand, confiscation and penalties were sustainable.

Analysis: The Revenue's case rested on photocopies of invoices and price lists supplied through a competitor's Indian subsidiary, along with selective NIDB data and market enquiries. The documents were not satisfactorily proved from their source, their authenticity was doubtful, and the evidence did not establish that the importer had paid any amount over and above the declared invoice price. The contemporaneous import data relied upon also reflected imports by different classes of buyers at a different commercial level, so the comparison was not dependable. Market enquiries could at best be corroborative and could not by themselves displace the declared transaction value. In the absence of reliable evidence satisfying the requirements for rejection of transaction value under the customs valuation framework, the demand could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The declared transaction value was not proved to be false or undervalued, and the demand, confiscation and penalties were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the impugned duty demand and penal consequences were set aside with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Transaction value cannot be rejected on suspicion or on the basis of unproved photocopies, unauthenticated price lists, or incomparable market data unless the Revenue first establishes reliable evidence of undervaluation and payment over and above the declared price.

---