Natural graphite classification and customs valuation require proof of conversion and comparable goods before rejecting transaction value.

Natural graphite that remains in the crude state after only permitted washing, crushing, grinding or similar physical processes continues to fall under Chapter 25, and is not classifiable as artificial graphite under Heading 3801.90 unless the material is shown to have been converted beyond the chapter. The declared import value also cannot be rejected and enhanced by relying on an invoice for different goods unless comparability under the similar-goods valuation rules is established and there is evidence that the transaction value is unacceptable; mere suspicion is insufficient. The discussion therefore turns on tariff classification of natural graphite and the evidentiary limits on customs valuation.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the imported natural graphite, after the processes described, was classifiable under Heading 2504.90 or under Heading 3801.90; and (ii) whether the declared import value could be rejected and enhanced on the basis of a different invoice under the Customs Valuation Rules.

Issue (i): whether the imported natural graphite, after the processes described, was classifiable under Heading 2504.90 or under Heading 3801.90

Analysis: Chapter 25 covers mineral products in the crude state and Note 1 permits only such washing, crushing, grinding and similar physical or mechanical processes as do not change the structure of the product, provided the product remains natural graphite and is not roasted, calcined, or otherwise converted into a product outside the chapter. The material was described as graphite in cut block form, and the record did not establish that it was artificial graphite. Heading 38.01 applies to artificial graphite, while natural graphite remains within Heading 25.04 even if supplied in powder, flakes, or similarly prepared form.

Conclusion: The classification under Heading 3801.90 was not sustainable and the goods were correctly classifiable under Heading 2504.90, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the declared import value could be rejected and enhanced on the basis of a different invoice under the Customs Valuation Rules

Analysis: The enhancement was founded on an invoice relating to goods of different origin, different supplier, different quantity, and different date, without establishing that the declared value was false or unacceptable under the valuation rules. Rule 6 applies to similar goods, which must satisfy the statutory conditions of comparability, and the comparison relied upon did not satisfy those conditions. In the absence of corroborative evidence such as the manufacturer's invoice or other proof of undervaluation, the declared transaction value could not be rejected merely on suspicion. The valuation therefore required fresh determination under Section 14 and the valuation rules.

Conclusion: The valuation enhancement was set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo consideration, in favour of the assessee to that extent.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on classification, while the valuation issue was sent back for fresh adjudication under the statutory valuation framework.

Ratio Decidendi: Natural graphite remaining in the crude state after only permitted mechanical or physical processes continues to fall under Chapter 25, and import value cannot be enhanced by reference to an incomparable invoice unless the conditions for similar-goods valuation and rejection of transaction value are established by evidence.

---