Transaction value acceptance upheld where no undervaluation evidence existed and Rule 10 amendment had no relevance.

Acceptance of the importer's transaction value for the 2010-2013 period was found proper because the Department produced no specific evidence of undervaluation, no higher contemporaneous value from NIDB data or comparable imports, and the importer supported its declared value with an affidavit and relevant documents. The amendment to Rule 10 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 had no bearing on the dispute since no royalty or technical know-how fee was paid during the relevant period, so nothing was required to be added to the declared value. The request for remand was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order accepting the transaction value for the period 2010-2013 was legal and proper.

Analysis: The Department did not point to any specific material showing undervaluation or any higher contemporaneous value from NIDB data or similar imports. The importer had filed an affidavit asserting no change in circumstances and had produced the relevant documents. The amendment to Rule 10 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 did not affect the dispute because no royalty or technical know-how fee had been paid for the relevant period, so there was no question of adding such amount to the declared value.

Conclusion: The acceptance of the transaction value was held to be proper, and the Department's request for remand was rejected.

---