Customs valuation requires cogent proof of undervaluation before rejecting transaction value or invoking residual valuation methods.

Declared transaction value in customs assessment can be displaced only on cogent proof that the invoice price is incorrect. Unattested photocopies of foreign export declarations and retracted statements, without corroboration, were insufficient to establish undervaluation or support enhancement of the assessable value. The department was required to rely on reliable evidence, ordinarily including comparable contemporaneous imports, and to proceed through the prescribed sequential valuation rules before invoking the residual method. As that burden was not discharged, the enhancement of value failed and the consequential penalties could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the enhancement of the assessable value of imported goods and the consequential penalties could be sustained on the basis of unattested photocopies of foreign export declarations and retracted statements, and whether recourse could be made straightaway to the residual valuation method without first excluding transaction value through the prescribed sequential rules.

Analysis: The department relied principally on the first set of export declarations filed abroad and on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. Those declarations were only unattested photocopies and their probative value was weakened further because the foreign supplier later filed a corrected set of declarations which was accepted by the foreign customs authority on payment of penalty. The statements of the importer and supplier were retracted, and in the absence of corroborative material their evidentiary weight was not sufficient to displace the declared invoice value. The Court reiterated that under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, transaction value is the primary basis of assessment and can be discarded only on cogent proof that the invoice price is incorrect. Where valuation is disputed, the department must support undervaluation by reliable evidence, ordinarily including comparable contemporaneous imports, before moving sequentially through the valuation rules; the residual method cannot be invoked in the absence of such proof.

Conclusion: The enhancement of value was not justified and the penalties founded on that enhancement could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because the customs authorities had not discharged the burden of proving undervaluation, and the Tribunal's order setting aside the demand and penalties was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: The declared transaction value in customs assessment can be rejected only on cogent proof of undervaluation, and the department must first establish such rejection by reliable evidence, including comparable imports where available, before resorting to the sequential or residual valuation rules.

---