Transaction value cannot be rejected without positive evidence, and clearance of goods on duty payment does not waive appeal rights.

Payment of duty to secure clearance of imported goods did not waive the importer's right to contest the enhanced valuation in appeal. The challenge was maintainable because clearance to avoid delay or demurrage is not abandonment of objection. The declared transaction value also could not be rejected merely on DoV data or suspicion; the Revenue had produced no positive evidence of extra consideration, relationship, contemporaneous imports, or other material displacing the statutory preference for transaction value. The enhanced assessable value was therefore unsustainable, the appeals succeeded, and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether clearance of imported goods on payment of duty on an enhanced assessable value precluded the importer from challenging the valuation in appeal; (ii) Whether the declared transaction value could be rejected and the assessable value enhanced on the basis of DoV data without positive evidence of undervaluation or contemporaneous imports.

Issue (i): Whether clearance of imported goods on payment of duty on an enhanced assessable value precluded the importer from challenging the valuation in appeal?

Analysis: Payment of duty to secure clearance of required imported goods, especially to avoid demurrage and delay, does not amount to abandonment of the right of appeal. Filing of appeals itself showed that the importer disputed the enhancement, and clearance of the goods was not a bar to questioning the assessed value.

Conclusion: The challenge to the enhanced valuation was maintainable and was not barred by clearance of the goods on payment of duty.

Issue (ii): Whether the declared transaction value could be rejected and the assessable value enhanced on the basis of DoV data without positive evidence of undervaluation or contemporaneous imports?

Analysis: The declared price had been enhanced without first dislodging the transaction value on legally sustainable grounds. The Revenue produced no tangible evidence of extra consideration, relationship, contemporaneous imports, or any other circumstance showing that the invoiced price was incorrect. Mere doubt or DoV data could not displace the statutory preference for transaction value, and the burden to prove undervaluation lay on the Revenue.

Conclusion: The transaction value could not be rejected on the material available, and enhancement of value was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the impugned orders were set aside, and the importer was entitled to consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Transaction value must be accepted unless the Revenue discharges its burden by positive and tangible evidence showing undervaluation, and clearance of goods on enhanced duty payment does not waive the right to challenge the assessment in appeal.

---