Transaction Value not to be Rejected without Investigation as per Custom Valuation Rules: CESTAT Notes Improper Procedure, Allows Appeal [Read Order]
On appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), it was held that the assessing officer had erred in rejecting the transaction value without any valid basis and without following due procedure as specified under Section 14 of the Custom Valuation Rules, 2007 (CVR).
![Transaction Value not to be Rejected without Investigation as per Custom Valuation Rules: CESTAT Notes Improper Procedure, Allows Appeal [Read Order] Transaction Value not to be Rejected without Investigation as per Custom Valuation Rules: CESTAT Notes Improper Procedure, Allows Appeal [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2026/04/02/2131409-transaction-value-not-to-be-rejected-without-investigation-as-per-custom-valuation-rules-cestat-notes-improper-procedure-allows-appeal-site-imagejpg.webp)
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata Bench, allowed an appeal, noting improper procedure as per Custom Valuation Rules wherein the transaction value was rejected without investigation.
Also Read:Service Tax Cannot Be Demanded Without Verifying RCM Payment by Recipient: CESTAT Remands [Read Order]
The appellant, M/s Anjum International, filed three Bills of Entry (BoE) for the consignments received from abroad. The order passed by the adjudicating authority on 27.03.2018 for finalizing the provisional assessment had relied upon the NIBD data to enhance the value of imported goods.
On appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), it was held that the assessing officer had erred in rejecting the transaction value without any valid basis and without following due procedure as specified under Section 14 of the Custom Valuation Rules, 2007 (CVR). The matter was remanded back to the original authority for re-examination, still aggrieved, the appellant appealed before the CESTAT.
Also Read:Service Tax Notice u/s 73 Unsustainable When Liability already Declared in ST-3 Returns: CESTAT [Read Order]
The tribunal observed that as per Section 14(1), the Revenue is required to give proper plausible explanation as to why the transaction value is to be discarded and the same has not been followed as has been held by the Commissioner (Appeals). The bench also relied on several precedents before delivering their opinion and directions.
R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and Rajeev Tandon (Technical Member) found that no reason as to why NIDB data should be directly applied has been provided by the Department. Further, since the Department has failed to follow CVR the order has been set aside and the appeal has been allowed, accordingly.

