Declared transaction value in customs valuation cannot be displaced without reliable evidence and admissible electronic records.

Declared transaction value for imported goods cannot be rejected unless the department first establishes a legally sustainable doubt with reliable evidence and follows the valuation rules. In the live Bill of Entry for LED TVs, physical examination matched the import documents, and a brand mark on one component did not justify treating the entire goods as branded; the alleged mismatch in origin papers was explained as a typographical error. For past imports of drywall screws, third-party proforma invoices and retrieved electronic material from other importers and periods were insufficient without contemporaneous comparison and statutory admissibility of electronic records. On that basis, the valuation re-determination, related confiscation and penalties were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the declared value of the live Bill of Entry for imported LED TVs could be rejected on the allegation that the goods were branded and undervalued; (ii) whether the declared values of the past Bills of Entry for Drywall Screws could be rejected and re-determined on the basis of third-party proforma invoices and retrieved electronic material.

Issue (i): Whether the declared value of the live Bill of Entry for imported LED TVs could be rejected on the allegation that the goods were branded and undervalued.

Analysis: The goods covered by the live Bill of Entry were physically examined on 100% basis and found to conform to the Bill of Entry, commercial invoice and packing list. The brand stickers were found only on the LED panels and not on the entire television set, so the presence of a brand mark on one component did not justify treating the whole imported goods as branded. The objection based on the certificate of origin was also not sustained, as the alleged mismatch was explained as a typographical error and no contrary evidence was produced. Further, the departmental reliance on retrieved printouts and proforma invoices was not admissible in the absence of compliance with the statutory requirements governing electronic records.

Conclusion: The rejection of the declared value for the live Bill of Entry was unsustainable and the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the declared values of the past Bills of Entry for Drywall Screws could be rejected and re-determined on the basis of third-party proforma invoices and retrieved electronic material.

Analysis: The reassessment was based on invoices and documents relating to different importers and different periods, without contemporaneous evidence showing undervaluation of the appellant's own imports. The declared transaction value remains the statutory basis for valuation unless validly rejected, and rejection under the valuation rules requires a legally sustainable reason to doubt its truth or accuracy, followed by proper procedural compliance. Since the department relied on third-party material, did not establish a reliable comparable basis, and did not satisfy the requirements for proving retrieved electronic records, the redetermination of value could not be upheld.

Conclusion: The rejection and re-determination of value for the past Bills of Entry were unsustainable and the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order could not survive scrutiny on either the live import or the past consignments, and the valuation demands, confiscation and penalty related consequences were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Declared transaction value cannot be rejected unless the department establishes a legally sustainable doubt with reliable evidence, and electronic or third-party material must satisfy the statutory rules of admissibility before it can be used to displace the importer's declared value.

---