Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-comparable NIDB data; unsupported enhancement and related penalties fail.

Transaction value remains the primary basis for customs valuation and may be rejected under Rule 12 only where reasonable doubt about the declared value persists after considering the importer's explanation. Full banking remittance, absence of additional consideration or related-party influence, and no discrepancy on First Check examination supported acceptance of the declared value. NIDB data alone, without disclosed and commercially comparable contemporaneous import evidence on quantity, commercial level, manufacturer, quality or specifications, did not justify rejection or resort to Rule 5 valuation. The resulting enhancement, differential duty and interest were unsustainable. As confiscation, redemption fine and penalty depended solely on that enhancement and lacked independent misdeclaration evidence, they were also unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether rejection of transaction value and re-determination of assessable value based solely on NIDB data were sustainable; (ii) Whether confiscation, redemption fine and penalty founded on the alleged undervaluation were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether rejection of transaction value and re-determination of assessable value based solely on NIDB data were sustainable.

Analysis: Transaction value is the primary basis of customs valuation. Rule 12 requires reasonable doubt as to the truth or accuracy of the declared value which remains unresolved after considering the importer's explanation. Full invoice-value remittance through banking channels was established, without evidence of additional consideration, flow-back, buyer-seller relationship, or discrepancy in First Check examination. NIDB data was relied on without complete comparable import documents and did not establish similarity in quantity, commercial level, manufacturer, quality, specifications or other price-affecting factors. The requirements for rejecting the declared value were therefore not met, and recourse to valuation under Rule 5 could not follow.

Conclusion: Rejection of the transaction value, enhancement of assessable value, and the consequential demand of differential duty and interest were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscation, redemption fine and penalty founded on the alleged undervaluation were sustainable.

Analysis: The confiscation and penal consequences rested entirely on the failed valuation enhancement. There was no independent evidence of misdeclaration; the imports were supported by commercial invoices, banking remittance, and First Check examination.

Conclusion: Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were unsustainable and were set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The declared transaction value remained acceptable, and all consequences arising solely from its unsupported enhancement were annulled.

Ratio Decidendi: NIDB data without reliable, disclosed and commercially comparable contemporaneous import evidence does not by itself create the reasonable doubt required to reject transaction value under the customs valuation rules.

---