Customs valuation must rest on like-goods international trade price; newspaper quotations cannot replace declared invoice value without reliable proof.

Customs valuation under section 14 of the Customs Act is governed first by the price of like goods in ordinary international trade where buyer and seller are unrelated and price is the sole consideration; resort to the residuary method is permissible only if that basis cannot be applied. The text also treats non-verification of an appeal as a curable procedural defect under the CEGAT procedure rules, not a jurisdictional bar, and notes that limitation is computed from communication of the order where that date is proved by affidavit evidence. On the facts described, the declared invoice value was not displaced by newspaper quotations or a deduced landed cost, and the departmental valuation was not sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the departmental appeals were filed within time; (ii) Whether the appeals were invalid for want of proper verification; (iii) Whether the assessable value fixed by the department could be sustained under section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue (i): Whether the departmental appeals were filed within time.

Analysis: The order of the Assistant Collector was communicated to the department later than the date of the order, and the appeal was filed within the prescribed period from the date of communication. The filing was supported by affidavit evidence showing the date of communication.

Conclusion: The objection on limitation failed and the issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the appeals were invalid for want of proper verification.

Analysis: The absence of verification was treated as a curable procedural defect. Rule 6A of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 required verification, but no provision showed that non-verification rendered the appeal non-maintainable. The defect was held to be an irregularity, not a jurisdictional bar.

Conclusion: The appeals were held maintainable and this issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether the assessable value fixed by the department could be sustained under section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: Valuation under section 14(1)(a) depends on the ordinary international trade price of like goods where buyer and seller have no interest in each other and price is the sole consideration. Recourse to section 14(1)(b) is permissible only when value cannot be determined under section 14(1)(a). The department relied on newspaper quotations and deduced landed cost, but there was no adequate proof that the newspaper prices related to comparable goods in international trade or that the invoice prices were manipulated. The invoices and supporting certificates were not displaced by reliable contrary material.

Conclusion: The department failed to justify rejection of the declared value, and the assessable value fixed by it was not sustained.

Final Conclusion: The common order resulted in dismissal of the departmental appeals and the connected cross-objections, leaving the valuation adopted by the appellate authority undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Recourse to residuary customs valuation is permissible only when the value cannot be determined on the basis of the price of like goods in international trade under section 14(1)(a); newspaper quotations or deduced landed cost cannot displace declared invoice value without reliable proof of comparability and manipulation.

---