Customs valuation enhancement fails absent rejection of transaction value and proof of comparable imports.

Declared value of imported dry dates could not be enhanced on the basis of an SIIB alert circular, website prices, or a refund valuation adopted under the special additional duty notification, because no contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods at higher prices were shown. The transaction value was not first rejected in the manner required by Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, and redetermination under Rule 7 was also unsupported for want of comparable import evidence or reliable wholesale price trends. The enhancement was therefore unsustainable and the impugned orders were liable to be set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared value of imported dry dates could be enhanced on the basis of an SIIB alert circular and website prices without first rejecting the transaction value under the Customs Valuation Rules and without evidence of contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods.

Analysis: The enhancement was founded on an alert circular and a price chart, but neither the adjudicating authority nor the appellate authority recorded contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods at higher prices. Independent website research, without disclosure of the relied-upon material to the importer, could not substitute for evidence of comparable imports. The transaction value was not rejected in the manner required under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, and the redetermination under Rule 7 was also unsupported because contemporary wholesale price trends were not ascertained. The value adopted for refund of special additional duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. had no bearing on valuation under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Conclusion: The enhancement of value was unsustainable and the impugned orders were liable to be set aside.

---