Customs valuation must follow invoice-based assessment unless section 14(1)(a) cannot determine value; procedural verification defects are curable.

Departmental appeals were held to be within limitation because the impugned order was proved to have been communicated on 6 December 1983 and the appeals were filed on 5 March 1984. Absence of verification at filing did not justify rejection, as verification under Rule 6A of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 was treated as a curable procedural irregularity, not a mandatory ground for dismissal under section 129-A(6) of the Customs Act. On valuation, section 14(1)(b) could be used only if value could not be determined under section 14(1)(a); newspaper quotations and deduced landed cost were insufficient where comparable imports existed and the invoice price had no proper basis for rejection.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the departmental appeals were filed within limitation; (ii) whether the appeals were liable to be rejected for want of proper verification; (iii) whether the assessable value could be fixed by resort to Section 14(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the basis of newspaper quotations and deduced landed cost.

Issue (i): Whether the departmental appeals were filed within limitation.

Analysis: The order of the Assistant Collector was communicated to the department on 6-12-1983 and the appeals were filed on 5-3-1984. On the affidavit produced by the department, the communication date was accepted as proved. The appeals were therefore within time.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the appeals were liable to be rejected for want of proper verification.

Analysis: Verification under Rule 6A of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 was treated as a procedural requirement. The absence of verification at the time of filing, later cured, was held to be a mere irregularity and not a ground for rejection. Section 129-A(6) of the Customs Act, 1962 was not treated as requiring dismissal of the appeals for such defect.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether the assessable value could be fixed by resort to Section 14(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the basis of newspaper quotations and deduced landed cost.

Analysis: Valuation under Section 14(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 depends on the ordinary sale price of like goods in the course of international trade, at arm's length and where buyer and seller have no interest in each other's business. Resort to the residuary provision in Section 14(1)(b) is permissible only when value cannot be determined under Section 14(1)(a). The department's reliance on newspaper quotations and deduced landed cost was rejected because comparable imports were available, the publications did not establish international trade values of comparable goods, and the show cause notice did not supply adequate foundation for discarding the invoice price.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the respondents.

Final Conclusion: The assessment based on deduced landed cost and newspaper quotations was not sustainable, and the departmental challenges to the appellate order failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 14(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 is a residuary valuation provision that can be invoked only when value cannot be determined under Section 14(1)(a); invoice value cannot be displaced by newspaper quotations or deduced landed cost without a proper factual basis establishing the need for such resort.

---