Declared import value cannot be enhanced on NIDB data alone without reliable comparability and supporting evidence.

Declared import value cannot be rejected merely on contemporaneous NIDB prices unless the department establishes reliable comparability of the goods in quality, quantity, country of origin, and time and place of import. On the facts discussed, the Tribunal treated the valuation dispute as covered by its earlier decision in the assessee's own case and found no justifiable evidence to discard the invoice value. The rejection of the declared value and the enhanced valuation were therefore held unsustainable, and the assessee succeeded with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared import value could be rejected and enhanced solely on the basis of NIDB contemporaneous values, and whether the resulting re-determination of value was sustainable.

Analysis: The value of the imported goods was enhanced on the strength of contemporaneous prices reflected in the National Import Data Base. The reasoned conclusion was that such data, by itself, could not justify rejection of the declared transaction value unless the imported goods were shown to be comparable in relevant respects, including quality, quantity, country of origin, and the time and place of import. The matter was also treated as covered by an earlier Tribunal decision in the appellant's own case on identical facts, where rejection of invoice value was found unsustainable for want of justifiable evidence.

Conclusion: The rejection of the declared value and the enhanced valuation were held unsustainable, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned valuation order could not stand and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief as permissible in law.

Ratio Decidendi: Declared import value cannot be rejected merely on NIDB data unless the department establishes reliable comparability of the goods and supporting evidence justifying enhancement under the valuation rules.

---