Natural justice controls import valuation: undisclosed comparative import data cannot support enhancement, while an unchallenged valuation stands.

Valuation re-determination based on contemporaneous import instances not supplied to the importer for rebuttal was held to offend natural justice and could not be sustained, so the enhancement for the infrared thermometer was set aside. By contrast, the enhancement relating to the fingertip pulse oximeter was not interfered with because no specific ground or argument was raised against that part of the valuation. The matter thus resulted in partial relief only, with one valuation enhancement displaced and the other left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the enhancement of value of the infrared thermometer could be sustained when the contemporaneous import instances relied upon were not furnished to the importer for rebuttal; (ii) Whether the enhancement of value of the fingertip pulse oximeter could be interfered with in the absence of any specific challenge.

Issue (i): Whether the enhancement of value of the infrared thermometer could be sustained when the contemporaneous import instances relied upon were not furnished to the importer for rebuttal.

Analysis: The re-determination of value was based on contemporaneous imports that were introduced at the appellate stage and were not shared with the importer. Since those materials were used against the importer without affording an opportunity of rebuttal, the process offended the principles of natural justice. The appellate authority also exceeded the proper scope of appellate consideration in sustaining enhancement on that basis.

Conclusion: The enhancement of value of the infrared thermometer could not be sustained and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the enhancement of value of the fingertip pulse oximeter could be interfered with in the absence of any specific challenge.

Analysis: No specific ground or argument was advanced to assail the enhancement relating to the fingertip pulse oximeter. In the absence of a focused challenge, there was no basis to disturb that part of the valuation.

Conclusion: The enhancement of value of the fingertip pulse oximeter was upheld and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The valuation dispute succeeded only in part, with relief granted on the infrared thermometer while the enhancement relating to the fingertip pulse oximeter remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Valuation based on material not furnished to the importer for rebuttal violates natural justice and cannot be sustained, while an unchallenged enhancement will not be interfered with.

---