Declared import value cannot be rejected for anti-dumping duty without direct evidence of misdeclaration or suppression.

Declared transaction value for imported melamine could not be rejected for anti-dumping duty merely on the basis of NIDB and ICIS data, contemporaneous import prices, or suspicion of overvaluation. In the absence of direct evidence such as parallel invoices, corroborative communications, extra remittances, or other tangible proof of misdeclaration or suppression, the valuation rules did not permit re-determination of value for anti-dumping purposes. A value accepted for basic customs duty could not be displaced on a different basis without legally acceptable evidence. The declared value therefore remained binding, and the demand founded on the re-determined value was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared transaction value of imported melamine could be rejected and re-determined for the purpose of anti-dumping duty on the basis of NIDB and ICIS data in the absence of direct evidence of misdeclaration or suppression.

Analysis: The appeal concerned a demand of anti-dumping duty arising from the alleged overvaluation of imported Chinese-origin melamine routed through third-country invoices. The Revenue relied on contemporaneous import data and database values, but no parallel invoices, corroborative communication, or proof of extra remittances was produced. The declared value had been accepted for basic customs duty, yet a different value was adopted only for anti-dumping duty, which was found inconsistent with the statutory scheme of valuation. In the absence of cogent, tangible, and direct evidence, suspicion and database comparisons were held insufficient to displace the declared transaction value or to justify rejection under the valuation rules.

Conclusion: The declared value could not be rejected, and the demand based on re-determined value was unsustainable. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue failed to establish misdeclaration or suppression with legally acceptable evidence, so the order dropping the notice was upheld and the appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Declared import value cannot be discarded for anti-dumping duty merely on suspicion, database comparisons, or contemporaneous price trends unless supported by direct and credible evidence showing misdeclaration, suppression, or parallel invoicing.

---