Declared export value cannot be rejected on chartered engineer reports alone without independent evidence of undervaluation.

Declared export value cannot be rejected merely because chartered engineer reports suggest different estimates when the notice challenges only value, export proceeds are realised at the declared figure, and no independent corroborative evidence shows hawala or any suspicious payment mode. Here, three engineer reports gave differing estimates but the variations were not substantial, and the Revenue produced no material to displace the declared value. On that basis, the re-determination of export valuation was held unsustainable and the assessee's declared value was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared value of the export goods could be rejected and re-determined on the basis of chartered engineer reports in the absence of any other evidence.

Analysis: The only allegation in the notice was regarding value, not description of the goods. The record showed that the export proceeds were received at the declared figure and there was no allegation of hawala or any other suspicious mode of payment. Three chartered engineer reports placed different estimates, but the differences were not substantial and no independent corroborative evidence was produced by the Revenue to displace the declared value. In these circumstances, the declared value could not be rejected merely on the basis of such reports.

Conclusion: The rejection of the declared export value was not sustainable and the valuation re-determined by the authorities was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---