Customs Valuation: Revenue cannot reject declared transaction value absent payment evidence or linkage to recovered invoices.

Customs valuation dispute over imported consumer goods where Revenue rejected declared transaction value and redetermined CIF values based on recovered invoices; the redetermination increased invoice values materially without itemwise correlation, signatures, or evidence of payment or bank transfers to corroborate higher values. The legal principle applied requires demonstrable linkage between invoice documents and the actual imported goods and corroboration by payment evidence before rejecting declared transaction value. On that basis the enhancement of assessable value, differential duty and penalties were found unsustainable and the challenged value enhancement was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Revenue was justified in rejecting the declared transaction value and redetermining the assessable value of imported consumer goods under the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 and Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The appeal concerns two bills of entry where declared CIF values were substantially increased by the original authority based on documents recovered during investigation. The redetermination relied on purported original invoices described as "ORIGINAL INVOICE AS ON OCT.2015" and "ORG INV MAR. 2016 TS" and applied Rule 3(1) read with Rule 10 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 and Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 to adopt enhanced CIF values. The record shows significant discrepancies between the invoices produced at import and the recovered documents: differences in item descriptions, and mismatches in quantities (for example 623 cartons declared versus 836 cartons on the recovered invoice). The recovered invoices were unsigned xerox copies and no evidence of corresponding payments or bank transfers was produced to corroborate the higher values. The enhancement was effected by increasing total invoice values substantially (approximately 100% increase in one consignment and about threefold in the other) without itemwise comparison or justification correlating the purported invoices to the imported consignments. Established principle requires corroboration of claimed transaction value adjustments with payment evidence or demonstrable linkage between recovered invoices and the actual imported goods before rejecting declared transaction value.

Conclusion: The Revenue was not justified in rejecting the declared transaction value and redetermining the assessable value; the enhancement of value and consequent differential duty and penalties are not sustainable. Appeal allowed with consequential reliefs as per law.

---