Higher contemporaneous NIDB values for similar goods justify rejecting the declared customs transaction value.

M/s Regent Industries India, a proprietorship concern of Manish Jain, imported wallpaper classifiable under CTH 48149000 under Bills of Entry Nos. 9999472 dated 17 December 2020 and 2231054 dated 4 January 2021, declaring a transaction value of USD 2.2 per kg.

The Faceless Assessment Group rejected the declared value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 and enhanced it to USD 3.5 per kg on the basis of National Import Database data relating to imports at Nhava Sheva/JNCH.

The Commissioner (Appeals), by an earlier order dated 31 May 2021, had remanded the matter for observance of natural justice and issuance of a speaking order.

In respect of Bill of Entry No. 2231054, the assessing authority subsequently passed an order dated 10 May 2022.

The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the enhancement for that Bill of Entry.

Regarding Bill of Entry No. 9999472, the Commissioner (Appeals) noted that no speaking order had been issued and directed the appellant to approach the concerned authorities for issuance of such order.

The appellant challenged the appellate order before the Tribunal.

Whether the declared transaction value of USD 2.2 per kg could be rejected under Rule 12 of the 2007 Valuation Rules and enhanced to USD 3.5 per kg on the basis of contemporaneous import data for identical or similar wallpaper?

Whether the assessing authority and Commissioner (Appeals) were required to consider the appellant’s earlier import allegedly assessed at USD 2.2 per kg and apply the lowest contemporaneous comparable value?

Whether the absence of a speaking order in respect of Bill of Entry No. 9999472 warranted interference by the Tribunal?

The Tribunal applied Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, under which imported goods are ordinarily valued on the basis of their transaction value, subject to the statutory valuation rules.

Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 permits rejection of the declared value where the proper officer has reasonable doubt regarding its truth or accuracy.

Upon rejection of the declared value, Rule 5 of the 2007 Rules requires valuation by reference to the transaction value of similar goods sold for export to India and imported at or about the same time, subject to the applicable conditions.

The Tribunal also relied on Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, which requires the proper officer to issue a speaking order where the importer disputes the assessment.

In support of the speaking-order requirement, it referred to J.K.C. General Trading Company v. Union of India, Writ Petition No. 15775 of 2025, Bombay High Court, order dated 1 December 2025, and the principle that Customs authorities cannot defeat an importer’s appellate remedies by failing to pass a speaking order.

The Tribunal held that the availability of higher values for contemporaneous imports of identical or similar wallpaper constituted a sufficient basis for entertaining reasonable doubt under Rule 12 and rejecting the declared value.

The assessing authority relied on Bills of Entry dated 2, 12 and 22 January 2021, including Bill of Entry No. 2466837 dated 22 January 2021 assessed at USD 3.50 per kg, and determined the value under Rule 5.

The Tribunal found that the comparable goods were imported at the same commercial level, in comparable quantities, and from the same country of origin.

It rejected the appellant’s reliance on Bill of Entry No. 9400767 dated 1 November 2020 because that import preceded the subject Bill of Entry and the assessing authority had selected the lowest value among the contemporaneous comparable imports relied upon.

The objection that the relevant description, size and thickness data had not been supplied was also rejected, since the appellant’s own documents did not specify those particulars and merely described the goods as “wall paper”.

As to Bill of Entry No. 9999472, the Tribunal accepted that the earlier remand direction requiring a speaking order and personal hearing had not been complied with.

Nevertheless, it found no error in the Commissioner (Appeals)’s direction permitting the appellant to approach the concerned authorities for issuance of the speaking order, particularly in view of Section 17(5).

It also upheld the direction concerning Bill of Entry No. 9999472, observing that the Customs authorities were required to issue a speaking order pursuant to the remand order and Section 17(5) of the Customs Act.

Finding no infirmity in the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.