Transaction value upheld where no reliable rebuttal exists and adjudication without notice or hearing breached natural justice.

Declared transaction value of imported knitted fabrics cannot be discarded where no reliable evidence rebuts the price paid or payable and no proof of undisclosed payments exists; expert test results and unsupported assertions about product characteristics do not justify re-determination under the Valuation Rules. Separately, adjudication conducted without issuing a show cause notice or affording a personal hearing violates principles of natural justice; statements from other importers do not substitute for appellant-specific hearing or evidence. Operative effect: the impugned order rejecting declared value and upholding re-determination was set aside and the appeal allowed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the declared transaction value of the imported knitted fabrics could be rejected and the value re-determined under the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007; (ii) Whether the adjudication without issuance of a show cause notice and without personal hearing violated principles of natural justice.

Issue (i): Whether the declared transaction value could be discarded and value re-determined under Rule 12 and Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007.

Analysis: The valuation challenge relied on a Textile Committee test report regarding fabric composition and on assertions about 4-way stretch making the goods costlier, while contemporaneous NIDB data for identical goods was unavailable. No evidence was produced showing that the price paid or payable to the overseas supplier was not the proper transaction value, nor was there proof of additional payments through authorised banking channels. The authority did not invoke provisions for mis-declaration under the Customs Act against the importer, and the supposed higher-priced characteristics were not supported by reliable comparative market data or by the Textile Committee's report on stretch characteristics.

Conclusion: The declared transaction value could not be rejected; re-determination under the Valuation Rules was not justified. The finding is in favour of the appellant on valuation.

Issue (ii): Whether the ex parte adjudication without a show cause notice and without affording personal hearing violated principles of natural justice.

Analysis: The adjudication enhancing value was undertaken without issuing a show cause notice and without granting a personal hearing to the importer. Statements recorded from other importers were not a substitute for hearing or evidence specific to the appellant, and no statements were recorded from the appellant regarding sourcing of the goods.

Conclusion: The adjudication proceeded in violation of principles of natural justice; this conclusion is in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order rejecting the declared value and upholding re-determination is set aside; the appellant's appeal is allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the transaction value is not rebutted by reliable evidence and the authority proceeds without issuing a show cause notice or affording a hearing, the declared transaction value cannot be discarded and re-determination under the Customs Valuation Rules is impermissible.

---