Customs transaction value must rest on cogent evidence; unverified data and circulars cannot justify re-valuation.

Customs valuation of imported PU belts cannot be enhanced merely on the basis of an administrative circular, unverified NIDB data, or an unsupported market enquiry. Rejection of transaction value requires cogent evidence showing that the declared price is unacceptable, such as contemporaneous imports of like goods with comparable quality, quantity, and origin, or a properly conducted and disclosed market enquiry. Here, no comparable bill of entry was produced, the data relied on was not shown to relate to identical goods, and no credible enquiry report or proof of extra payment was established. The declared value therefore could not be displaced, and the re-determination, with consequential confiscation, duty demand, interest, and penalty, was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared value of the imported PU belts could be rejected and re-determined on the basis of a customs circular, NIDB data, and an alleged market enquiry, and whether the consequential confiscation, duty demand, interest, and penalty could be sustained.

Analysis: The value of imported goods cannot be enhanced merely on the basis of an administrative circular or general intelligence unless the Department brings reliable evidence showing that the declared price is unacceptable. Rejection of transaction value requires cogent material such as contemporaneous imports of like goods, with proof of identity in quality, quantity, and origin, or a properly conducted market enquiry. In the present case, no contemporaneous bill of entry was produced, the NIDB data was not shown to relate to comparable goods, and no credible market enquiry report was placed on record or supplied to the appellant. The only relied-upon document was not authenticated. The Department also did not establish payment over and above the declared invoice value. On these facts, the declared value could not be dislodged and the re-determination under the valuation rules was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The rejection of the declared value and its re-determination were not justified and were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, and all consequential demands and penalties based on the rejected valuation also failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Transaction value in customs valuation can be rejected only on the basis of cogent evidence of under-valuation, supported by comparable contemporaneous imports or other reliable material, and not on the basis of a circular, unverified data, or an unproved market enquiry.

---