TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1013
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IV (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned order"), whereby the declared transaction value of LED bulbs imported under Bill of Entry Nos. 8081144 and 8081292 dated 23.01.2015 was rejected, the value was enhanced on the basis of NIDB data and differential duty, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were confirmed. 2. The facts, as briefly stated and culled out from the appeal records, are that the appellant imported Plastic LED Bulbs of various wattages from M/s. Wenzhou Xingye Electrical Co. Ltd., China under Bill of Entry Nos. 8081144 and 8081292 dated 23.01.2015. Though the goods were subjected to First Check examination, the declared transaction value was enhanced on the basis of NIDB data and the assessments were provisionally ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce warranting rejection of transaction value under Rule 12. Reliance was also placed upon various judicial precedents to contend that NIDB data alone cannot form the basis for rejection of transaction value or enhancement of assessable value. 5. Per contra, the Ld. Authorized Representative Ms. Rajini Menon reiterated the findings of the impugned order and submitted that the declared values were abnormally low when compared to contemporaneous import prices reflected in the NIDB database. She has contended that the NIDB data, coupled with the First Check examination, created reasonable doubt regarding the truth and accuracy of the declared value, justifying rejection of transaction value under Rule 12 and re-determination of value under R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ablishing remittance of the entire invoice value through ING Vysya Bank. The bank advice dated 19.12.2014 records remittance of USD 13,728.00 to the Foreign Supplier. 10. The Department has neither alleged any additional remittance, extra commercial consideration, flowback arrangement nor any relationship between the buyer and seller. There is also no allegation that any amount over and above the invoice value was paid. These circumstances assume significance while examining the validity of rejection of transaction value under Rule 12. 11. We find that the Department has relied solely on NIDB data without furnishing all the details of comparable Bills of Entry, connected invoices and other supporting documents relating to the alleged ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quential methods prescribed under the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, the Department is required to establish valid grounds for rejection of transaction value in terms of Rule 12 by producing cogent evidence giving rise to reasonable doubt regarding the truth or accuracy of the declared value. In support of the above submissions, reliance is placed upon the following decisions: - i. Atlantis Trading Co. v. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, 2024 (14) Centax 221 (Tri.-Mad.); ii. Sai Exports v. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, 2019 (370) E.L.T. 398 (Tri.-Chennai); iii. Commissioner of Customs (ICD), Delhi v. Vardhman Sales Agency, 2026 (40) Centax 130 (Tri.-Chandigarh); and iv. CCE & ST, Noida v. Sanjiva....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sel submitted that the facts of the present case are squarely covered by the settled legal position that NIDB data, in the absence of corroborative evidence and legally comparable contemporaneous imports, cannot form the sole basis for rejection of transaction value or enhancement of assessable value. It was therefore contended that the impugned order, having been founded entirely on such NIDB data without satisfying the requirements of Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, is liable to be set aside. 15. We find considerable force in the appellant's contentions. It is well settled that NIDB data alone cannot justify rejection of transaction value. In the present case, the Department has not produced any independent evidence of un....