Customs valuation must follow statutory rules; DRI suggestions cannot replace the prescribed valuation sequence.

Customs valuation of imported goods cannot be re-determined merely on a DRI chart or suggested value; if doubt arises about the declared transaction value, the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 require rejection under Rule 12 and then sequential application of the prescribed valuation rules. The note emphasises that the Customs Act, 1962 does not confer any power on the investigating agency to fix or suggest values, and tariff values can be notified only by the competent statutory authority under section 14(2). On that basis, valuation based solely on the DRI suggestion was treated as unlawful and the impugned orders were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared value of imported goods could be rejected and re-determined on the basis of a value suggested by the Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence instead of following the statutory valuation scheme.

Analysis: The imported goods were found to differ in thickness and weight from the description declared in the Bills of Entry, which led the adjudicating authority to doubt the declared transaction value. Even assuming such doubt, the statutory scheme required recourse to Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 for rejection of the declared value, followed by re-determination in the prescribed sequence under Rules 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9. The value was instead fixed solely on the basis of a chart prepared by the Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence for a particular ICD, but the Customs Act, 1962 does not confer any power on that authority to determine or suggest values. The power to fix tariff values by notification lies under section 14(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 with the competent statutory authority, not with the investigating agency.

Conclusion: The valuation based on the DRI suggestion was unlawful and the impugned orders could not be sustained. The appeal was allowed and the order below was set aside with consequential relief to the appellant.

---