Customs valuation and tariff classification: declared value stands on evidence, and motor controller falls under machine parts heading.

Declared transaction value cannot be rejected merely on NIDB data or alleged comparable imports unless the customs valuation framework is supported by cogent contemporaneous evidence showing the invoice price is not genuine, related-party influence, or extra consideration. On the facts stated, enhancement of assessable value was not justified and the declared value was accepted. For classification, a motor controller used principally for starting, stopping and regulating a motor falls under CTH 8503 0090 where its principal use is with that machine, and it was not shown to be a part or accessory of e-rickshaw under CTH 8708 9900. The Commissioner (Appeals) order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the enhancement of assessable value by rejecting the declared transaction value was sustainable; (ii) Whether the imported motor controller was correctly classifiable under CTH 8503 0090 rather than CTH 8708 9900.

Issue (i): Whether the enhancement of assessable value by rejecting the declared transaction value was sustainable.

Analysis: The declared value was rejected mainly on the basis of NIDB data and alleged comparable imports, but the record did not show reliable contemporaneous evidence, examination of the factors relevant under the customs valuation framework, or proof that the price actually paid was not genuine. There was also no material to show related-party dealings or that additional consideration had passed over and above the invoice value. The rejection of the transaction value was therefore unsupported by the statutory valuation scheme.

Conclusion: The enhancement of assessable value was not sustainable and the declared transaction value was rightly accepted.

Issue (ii): Whether the imported motor controller was correctly classifiable under CTH 8503 0090 rather than CTH 8708 9900.

Analysis: The controller was found to be a device used principally with the motor for starting, stopping and regulating its operation. CTH 8503 covers parts suitable for use solely or principally with machines of heading 8501 or 8502, whereas the goods were not shown to be parts or accessories of e-rickshaw under heading 8708. The material on record did not establish exclusive or principal use in motor vehicles, and the exclusionary position under heading 8708 was not made out.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly classifiable under CTH 8503 0090.

Final Conclusion: The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld on both valuation and classification, and the Revenue appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Declared transaction value cannot be rejected or value enhanced unless the statutory valuation requirements are satisfied by cogent evidence, and an imported article is classifiable under a heading for parts of a machine where its principal use is with that machine and it is not shown to fall under a more specific competing heading.

---