Holding

The invoice price constitutes the transaction value and must be accepted unless the Revenue proves under‑invoicing with evidence of higher‑priced comparable imports; the Revenue cannot invoke Rule 8 without sequential compliance with Rules 5‑7.

Summary

The importer South India Television Ltd. imported ceramic capacitors and diodes from Hong Kong and declared low invoice prices. The Customs Department issued a show‑cause notice alleging under‑invoicing and invoked Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules to enhance the assessable value based on export declarations from the foreign supplier, demanding differential duty and a fine. The importer contested, arguing that the invoice price reflected the actual transaction value and that the Department had no evidence of contemporaneous imports at higher prices, and that Rule 8 could not be invoked without first complying with Rules 5‑7. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal allowed the importer’s appeal, and the Revenue appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court held that the invoice price is the primary evidence of transaction value under Section 14(1) and Rule 4; the Department must prove under‑invoicing by showing higher‑priced comparable imports, which it failed to do, and cannot bypass Rules 5‑7 by directly invoking Rule 8. Consequently, the Tribunal’s decision was affirmed and the Revenue’s appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the Customs Department can reject the declared invoice price and enhance duty by invoking Rule 8 without first complying with Rules 5, 6 and 7 of the Customs Valuation Rules.
Whether the allegation of under‑invoicing must be supported by evidence of contemporaneous imports at higher prices.
Whether export declarations of the foreign supplier can be used to determine the assessable value of imported goods.
Interpretation of Section 14(1) and Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules regarding the transaction value.

Legislation cited

Customs Act, 1962s. 14(1), s. 14(1A), s. 2(41)
Customs Tariff Act, 1975
Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988s. Rule 4, s. Rule 5, s. Rule 6, s. Rule 7, s. Rule 8

Subjects

customs valuationunder‑invoicingtransaction valueRule 4Rule 8Section 14import dutyburden of proofexport declarationevidence

Judgment

96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 8 S.C.R.

A Imported goods did not represent the transaction value under Rule 4 of the
Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988
("Customs Valuation Rules") as the price actually paid appeared to be
different than the declared price and that the Importer had under-Invoiced
the value of the goods to evade huge amount of the Government's revenue.
The Importer was asked to show cause as to why the value of the consignments
B In question should not be enhanced based on the export declaration under Rule
8 of the Customs Valuation Rules made by the Foreign Supplier. Accordingly,
a demand was raised for the differential duty of Rs. 28104,831.40 and fine In
lieu of confiscation. Rejecting the contentions of the assessee, the demand of
differential amount of duty was confirmed by the Revenue. Aggrieved by the
C order of the authorities, the assessee flied an appeal before the Customs,
Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGA T), which was allowed by
the Tribunal. Hence the present appeal filed by the Revenue and the connected
appeals filed by the assessees.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court
D
HELD: 1.1. Value is derived from the price. Value is the function of the
price. This is the conceptual meaning ofvalue. Under Section 2(41), "value"
Is defined to mean value determined.in accordance with Section 14(1) of the
Act. Silction 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 Is the sole repository ·of law·
gov,ernlng valuation of goods. The Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 have been
E framed only in respect of imported goods. There are no rules governing the
valuation of export goods. That must be done based on Section 14 itself.
fPara 61 (103-H; 104·AI
1.2. The Revenue hH charged the respondent-Importer alleging mis·
F declaration regarding the price. There Is no allesatlon of mis-declaration In
the context of the description of the goods. The allegation Is ofunder-lnvolclng. ~
The charse of under-lnvolcln1 has to be supported by evidence of prlce11 of t'
contemporaneous Imports of like 1oods. It Is for the Revenue to prove that ,,,
the apparent Is not the real. (Para 611104-B, CJ

G 1.3. On a plain reading of Section 14(1) and Section 14(1A) of the Act,
It envisages that the value of any goods chargeable to ad valorem duty has to
be deemed prici: as referred to In Section 14(1). Therefore, determination of
such price has to be In accordance with the relevant rules and subject to the .. •1'\-
provlslons of Section 14(1). It Is made clear that Section 14(1) and Section
H 14(1A) are not mutually exclusive. Therefore, the transaction value under
Rule 4 of the Rules must be the price paid or payable on such goods at the
COMMNll. OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA~. SOUTH INDIA TELEVISION (P) LTD. 97
time and place or Importation In the course or International trade. Section 14 A
Is the deemlna provision. It talks or deemed value. The value Is deemed to be
the price at which such goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale, for
delivery at the time and place of Importation In the course of International
trade where the seller and the buyer have no interest In the business of each
other and the price Is the sole consideration for the sale or for offer for sale. B
Therefore, what has to be seen by the Revenue ls the value or cost of the
Imported goods at the time of Importation, the invoice price Is not sacrosanct.
However, before rejecting the invoice price Revenue has to alve cogent reasons
for such rejection. This is because the invoice price forms the basis of the
transaction value. Therefore, before rejecting the transaction value as
Incorrect or unacceptable, Revenue has to find out JVhether there are any C
Imports or Identical aoods or similar goods at a hlaher price at around the
same time. Unless the evidence Is aathered In that reaard, the question of
Importing Section 14(1A) does not arise. In the absence of such evidence,
Invoice price has to be accepted as the transaction value. Invoice Is the evidence
ofvalue. Casting suspicion on invoice produced by the importer is not sufficient D
to reject It as evidence ofvalue of Imported goods. (Para 61
1.4. lfthe Revenue relies on declaration made in the exporting country,
It has to show how such declaration was procured. It Is clarified that strict
rules of evidence do not apply to adjudication proceedings.
(Para 6) (105-B( E
1.5. Once the Revenue discharges its burden of proof by producing
evidence of contemporaneous Imports at higher price, the onus shifts to the
Importer to establish that the Invoice relied on by him Is valid. Therefore, the
char1e of under·lnvolctn1 has to be supported by evidence of prices of
contemporaneous Imports or like 1oods. fPara 6] (105-C, DI F
1.6. When there Is no evidence of contemporaneous Imports at a higher
price, the Invoice price Is liable to be accepted. The value In the export
declaration may be relied upon for ascertainment of the assessable value under
the Customs Valuation Rules and not for determining the price at which goods
are ordinarily sold at the time and place of Importation. This Is where «ie G
conceptual difference between value and price comes Into discussion.
(Para 6) (105-D, El

2.1. Applying the above tests to the facts of the present case, It Is found
that there is no evidence provided by the Revenue showing contemporaneous
Imports at hl1her price. On the contrary, the assessee-lmporter has relied H
98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 8 S.C.R.

A upon contemporaneous imports from the same supplier, which indicates
_
' --- - _,

comparable prices of like goods during the same period of importation. This
evidence has not been rebutted by the Revenue. (Para 71 (105-E, Fl -

2.2. The importer has alleged that the original declarations were with
the Revenue. That certain portions of the originals were not shown to the
B importer despite the importer calling upon t_he adjudicating authority to do
so. Further, by way of Interlocutory Application No. 4 in the present civil
appeal, an application was moved by the Importer calling upon the Revenue to
produce the original declaration in the Court. No reply has been filed to the
said I.A. till date. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that Revenue
C had erred In rejecting the invoice submitted by the assessee as Incorrect.
(Para 7] (106·A, BJ

2.3. Jn the message received from the foreign supplier, the supplier had
explained that the manufacturer of the Impugned goods was gettlna export
rebates and, therefore, It Is possible that the manufacturer had over 1nvolced
8

D the price In order to claim more rebate. The goods were of Chinese origin;
that he was required to show the export value on the higher side In order to
claim the Incentives given by his Government. This explanation of the foreign
supplier, In the present case, had been accepted by the Commissioner. In his
order, the Commissioner has not ruled out over~lnvolclng of the export value
E by the foreign supplier In order to obtain Incentives from his Government.
For these reRSon11, no Infirmity Is found In the Impugned judgment of the
Tribunal. (Para 7) [106~8, C, DJ

3. It Is clarified that It Is still open to Revenue, based on evidence, to
show that the declared price Is not the price at which like goods are sold or
F offered for sole ordinarily, which words occur In Section 14(1) of t~e Act. In
the decision of this Court In the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd v. Commissioner
of Customs, Mumbai, this Court has held that Revenue hH to proceed
sequentially under Rules S, 6 onwards and it Is not open to them to Invoke
Rule 8 without sequentially complying with Rules 5, 6 and 7 even In cases
where the transaction value ls to be rejected under Rule 4. In the present
G case, the show cause _notice Indicates that they had invoked Rule 8 without
complying with the earlier rules. jPara 81 IJ06·G, H; 107~AJ

Eicher Tractors Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, (2000) 122
E.L.T.321, relied on.

H
COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA v. soum INDIA TELEVISION (P) LTD. [KAPADIA. J.] 99

4. In the connected appeals, the Tribunal has held on facts that the import A
invoices issued by Hong Kong traders and the export declarations filed by the
same traders before Hong Kong Customs bear different values. No explanation
whatsoever has been given for quoting two different values. Further, the
importers in the present cases have failed to file the manufacturer's invoices
in support of the value shown in the import invoices. For these reasons, no
infirmity is found in the judgment of the Tribunal which has decided the matter B
in favour of the Revenue. (Para 10) [107-C, D, E)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1137 of2002.

From the Judgment and Order No. A-161/KOL/2001 dated 15.02.2001 of
the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal Eastern Bench at C
Kolkata in Appeal No. C-8/99.

WITH

C.A. Nos. 5517 & 5518 of2004.
D
Mathai M. Paikaday, Sr. Adv., Shishir Pinaki, Shalini Kumar, B. Krishna
Prasad and Neeru Vaid for the Appellant.

Joseph Vellapally,.Sr. Adv., C. Hari Shankar, Rupesh Kumar, S. Sunil,
Pinaki Mahapatra, N. Jagdeesh, Jay Kumar and Tara Chandra Sharma for the E
Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KAPADIA, J. Civil Appeal No. 1137 of2002.

1. The dispute involved in this civil appeal is as regards the assessable F
value of the Ceramic Capacitors and Diodes imported by the importer from M/
s Pearl Industrial Company of Hong Kong during the period February, 1996
to July, 1996. The importer had declared the price of Ceramic Capacitors@
Hong Kong $ 6 per 1000 pcs. and the CIF price of the consignment of diod~s
was declared as Hong Kong $ 29406. G
2. The facts giving rise to this civil appeal are as follows. The respondent
had imported six consignments of ceramic capacitors and one con$ignment
of diodes from Hong Kong during the above period. The goods were shipp'd
fr<>m Hong Kong by Mis Compo Export of Hong Kong and Mis Pearl Industrial
Company of Hong Kong. The price of ceramic capadtors was declared by the H
100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 8 S.C.R.

A 'respondent In its Bill of Entry @ HKS 6.00 per 1000 pcs. whereas the price .
of diodes was declared @ HK S 29406 CIF as reflected In the invoices. On ·
27.4.1998 a show cause notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of
Customs, Calcutta alleging Inter a/la that as per the overseas Investigation
report of the Hons Kong Customs and Excise Department the declared price
B did not represent the transaction value under Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation
(Determination of Price of Imported Ooods) Rules, 1988 ("Customs Valuation
Rules") as the price actually paid appeared to be different than the declared
price and that the importer had under-invoiced the value of the goods to
evade huge amount of the Oovemment's revenue. At this stage, it may be
pointed out that in the show cause notice the Assistant Commissioner had
C specifically invoked Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, which was
subsequently given up by the Department. Be that as it may, the importer was
asked to show cause as to why the value of the consignments in question
should not be enhanced based on the export declaration under Rule 8 of the
Customs Valuation Rules made by the Foreign Supplier. Accordingly, vide the
aforestated show cause notice, the Assistant Commissjoner raised a demand
D for the differential duty of Rs. 28,04,831.40 and fine in lieu of confiscation. In
reply, the importer denied the above allegations. In reply, it was submitted that
the show cause notice was based solely upon the purported investigation
report of Hong Kong Customs and Excise duty; that the said report was
accompanied by xerox copies of the export declarations; that the xerox copies
E did not bear the seal or signature of the customs officials in Hong Kong; that
the authenticity of the declaration was doubtful; that the declarations were
not the correct reproduction of the original and that there were endorsements
to the effect that the documents shall not be used against any third party or
in any legal proceedings .. Iri other words, the importer contended that the
charge of under-valuation cannot be based on xerox copies of the declarations
F which were not even certified by the competent authority in Hong Kong.
According to the importer, such declarations had no bearing upon the actual
sale price of the goods in the hands of Hong Kong exporters. According to
the importer, there was no allegation in the show cause notice that it had paid
higher value to the supplier than that declared by it in the Bill of Entry. Before
G the Assistant Commissioner, the importer supported the declared price
mentioned in the Bill of Entry by relying upon various contemporaneous
imports made during the above period by other importers whereas the price
declared for identical goods was the same as the prke declared by the
importer in the present case in its Bill of Entry. It was further submitted by
the importer that it was not open for the Assistant Commissioner to adjudicate
H the value under Rule 8 without going sequentially from Rule 5 to Rule 6 and
C:OMMNX, Of IMTOMI, C:ALCIJ'l'l'A ll IOIJ'Ml INDIA Tlibl!VllION (P) LTll [KAl'ADIA, J,J 101
Rule 6 to Rule 7 onwards. The importer further contended that, in the presont A
case, the value of the goods could have been determined in terms of Rulo 5
and, therefore, there was no question of invoking Rule 8. In this connection
reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court In the case of Eicher
Tractors Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai reported in (2000)
(122)E.L.T.32 l.
B
3. The above arguments of the importer were rejected. The show cause
notice and the demand levied was confirmed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid
decision, the matter was carried in appeal to the Customs, Excise and Oold
\ (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEOAT). The Tribunal allowed the appeal by
holding that xerox copies of the export declarations, even though procured C
from Hong Kong customs will not make such declarations genuine declaratiqns.
According to the Tribunal, the origin of the goods was from China/Tiwan,
therefore, there was a possibility of the export declaration price being on the
higher side (over invoiced). This was in view of the fact that in some of the
above countries, the goods are subsidized by the concerned Governments.
Huge subsidies are given based on the export declaration price. Similarly, D
incentives are also given in that regard. This possibility has not been rejected
by the adjudicating authority. Even according to the adjudicating authority,
the Hong Kong supplier might have inflated the price in order to earn export
incentives and if that be the case then according to the Tribunal, the export
declaration made by the Hong Kong supplier cannot be made the basis for E
increasing the value of the goods in India. Further, according to the Tribunal,
in the present case, the importer has relied upon instances of import of
identical goods at identical rates by other importers from the same supplier
(namely, Mis Pearl Industrial Company, Hong Kong) during the aforesaid
period. The Department had accepted those rates. This evidence led by the
importer herein has not been rebutted. It had not been discussed by: the F
adjudicating authority. In the circumstances, the Tribunal allowed the appeal
filed by the importer. Hence, this civil appeal has been filed by the Department.

4. At the outset, we quote hereinbelow Section 2(41 }, Section 14(1) and
Section 14(1A) of the Customs Act, 1962, as it stood at the relevant time:
G
"2(41) "value", in relation to any goods, means the value thereof
detennined in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of
section 14.

H
102 .SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 8 S.C.R.

A 14. Valuation of goqds for purposes of assessment.-(1) For the
purposes of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), or any other
law for the time being in force whereunder a duty of customs is
chargeable on any goods by reference to their value, the value of
such goods shall be deemed to be the price at which such or like
goods are ordinarily sold, or offered for sale, for delivery at the time
B and place of importation or exportation, as the case may be, in the
course of international trade, where the seller and the buyer have no
interest in the business of each other and the price is the sole
consideration for the sale or offer for sale:

Provided that such price shall be calculated with reference to the
c rate <'f exchange as in force on the date on which a bill of entry is
preseqted unde.r section 46, or a shipping· bill or bill of export, as the
case may be, is presented under section 50.

(IA) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), the price referred
to in that sub-section in respect of imported goods shall be determined
D
in accordance with the rules made in this behalf."

5. We also quote hereinbelow Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation ~
(Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988, as it stood at the
relevant time:
E "4. Transaction value. (I) The transaction value of imported goods
shall be the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold
for export to India, adjusted in accordance with the provisions of Rule
9 of these rules.

(2) The transaction value of imported goods under sub-rule (1) above
F shall be accepted :

Provided· that-

(a) there are no restrictions as to the disposition or use of the goods
by the buyer other than restrictions which -
G
(i) are imposed or required by law or by the public authorities
in India;

or \
(iI) limit the geographical area in which the goods may be resold;
H
C0MMNR. Of CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA v. SOUTII INDIA TELEVISION (P) LID. [KAPADIA, J.) 103
or A
"'
(iii) do not substantially affect the value of the goods;
(b) the sale or price is not subject to same condition or consideration
for which a value cannot be determined in respect of the goods
being valued;
B
(c) no part of the proceeds of any subsequent resale, disposal or use
of the goods by the buyer will accrue directly or indirectly to the
seller, unless an appropriate adjustment can be made in accordance
with the provisions of Rule 9 of these rules; and
(d) the buyer and seller are not related, or where the buyer and seller
are related, that transaction value is acceptable for customs
c
purposes under the provisions of sub-rule (3) below.
(3) (a) Where the buyer and seller are related, the transaction value
shall be accepted provided that the examination of the
· circumstances of the sale of the imported goods indicate that the D
relationship did not influence the price..
. }
(b) In a sale between related persons, the transaction value shall
be accepted, whenever the importer demonstrates that the declared
value of the goods being valued, closely approximates to one of
the following values ascertained at or about· the same time
E
(i) the transaction value of identical goods, or of similar goods,
in sales to unrelated buyers in India;
(ii) the ded.uctive value for identical goods or similar goods;
(iii) the computed value for identical goods or similar goods. .F

Provided that in applying the values used for comparisoq, due
account shall be taken of demonstrated difference in commercial levels,
quantity levels, adjustments in accordance with the provisions of Rule
9 of these rules and cost incurred by the seller in sales in which he
and the buyer are not related; G
(c) substitute values shall not be established under the provisions
of clause (b) of this sub-rule."

6. We do not find any merit in this civil appeal for the following reasons.
Value is derived from the price. Value is the function of the price. This is the H
;'

104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 8 S.C.R.

A concep~al meaning of value. Under Section 2(41), "value" Is defined to mean
value determined ln accordance with Section 14(1) of the Act. Section 14 of
the Customs Act, 1962 Is the sole repository of law governing valuation of
/ '
1oods. The Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 have been framed only In respect
of Imported aoods. There are no rules governing the valuation of export
goods. That must be done based on Section 14 Itself, In the present cue, the
B Department has charged the respondent-importer alleging mis-declaration
regarding the price, There is no allegation of mis-declaration In the context
of the description of the goods, In the present case, the allegation is of under·
Invoicing. The charge of under-invoicing has to be supported by evidence
of prices of contemporaneous imports of like goods. It is for the Department
c to prove that the apparent Is not the real. Under Section 2(41) of the Customs
Act, the word "value" is defined in relation to any goods to mean the value
determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 14(1). The value to
be dectared in the Bill of Entry is the value referred to above and not merely
the invoice price. On a plain reading o~Section 14(1) and Section 14(lA), it
envisages that the value of any goods chargeable to ad valorem duty has
D to be deemed price as referred to in Section 14(1). Therefore, determination
of such price has to be in accordance with the relevant rules and subject to
the provisions of Section 14( l ). It is made clear that Section 14( l) and Section
14(1A) are not mutually exclusive. Therefore, the transaction value under Rule
4 must be the price paid or payable on such goods at the time and place of
E importation in the course of international trade. Section 14 is the deeming
provision. It talks. of deemed value. The value is deemed to be the price at
which such goods are ordil.arily sold or offered for sale, for delivery at the
time and place of importation irr the course of international trade where the
seller and the buyer have no interest in the business of each other and the
price is the sole consideration for the sale or for offer for sale. Therefore, what
F has to be seen by the Department is the value or cost of the imported goods
at the time of impo11ation, i.e., at the !ime when the goods reaches the
customs barrier. Therefore, the invoice price is not sacrosanct. However,
before rejecting the invoice price the Department has to give cogent reasons ..
for such rejection. This is because the invoice price forms the basis of the
G transaction value. Therefore, before rejecting the transaction value as incorrect
or unacceptable, the Department has to find out whether there are any imports
of identical goods or similar goods at a higher price at around the same time.
Unless the evidence is gathered in that regard, the question of importing
Section 14(1A) does not arise. In the absence of such evidence; invoice price
'\
has to be accepted as the transaction value. Invoice is the evidence of value.
H Casting suspicion on invoic.e produced by the importer is not sufficient to
y
COMMNA, OP CUITOMI, CAbCU'ITA ~' •OOTM INDIA 'l'liLl!VlllON (P) I.TD, [KAPADIA, l,J 105
' .. reject It as evidence of value of Imported good1. Under-valuation hu to be A
proved. If· the charge of under-valuation cannot be 1upported either by
"" evl~ence or Information about comparable Imports, the benefit of doubt must
go to the Importer. If the Department wants to allege under-valuation, It must
make detailed Inquiries, collect material and also adequate evidence. When
under-valuation Is alleged, the Department has to prove lt by evidence or
Information about comparable Imports. For proving under-valuation, if the B
Department relies on declaration made In the exporting country, it has to show
how such declaration was procured. We may clarify that strict rules of evlde~ce
do not apply to adjudication proceedings. They apply strictly to the couilts'
proceedings. However, even in adjudication proceedings, the AO has to
examine the probative value of the documents on which reliance is placed by c
the Department in support of its allegation of under-valuation. Once the
Department discharges the burden of proof to the above extent by producing
evidence of contemporaneous imports at higher price, the onus shifts· to the
importer to establish that the invoice relied on by him is valid. Therefore, the
charge of under-invoicing has to be supported by evidence of prices of
contemporaneous imports of like goods. Section 14(1) speaks of "deemed D
value". Therefore, invoice price can be disputed. However, it is for the
Department to prove that the invoice price is incorrect. When there is no
evidence of contemporaneous imports at a higher price, the invoice price is
liable to be accepted. The value in the export declaration may be relied uJ)on
for ascertainment of the assessable value under the Customs Valuation Rules E
and not for determining the price at which goods are ordinarily sold at the
time and place of importation. This is where the conceptual difference between
value and price comes into discussion.

7. Applying the above tests to the facts of the present case, we find
that there is no evidence from the side of the Department showing F
contemporaneous imports at higher price. On the contrary, the respondent
importer has relied upon contemporaneous imports from the same supplier,
namely, Mis Pearl Industrial Company, Hong Kong, which indicates comparable
prices of like goods during the same period of importation. This evidence has
not been rebutted by the Department. Further, in the present case, the
Department has relied upon export declaration made by the foreign supplier
G
in Hong Kong. In this connection, we find that letters were addressed by the
Department to the Indian Commission which, in ·tum, requested detailed
investigations to be carried out by Hong Kong Customs Department. The
.(
Indian Commission has forwarded the export declarations in original to the
Customs Department in India. One such letter is dated 19.9.1996. In fhe H
y

106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 8 S.C.R.
)
A present case, the importer has alleged that the original declarations were with
y
the Department. That certain portions of the originals were not shown to the
importer despite the importer calling upon the adjudicating authority to do so.
Further, by way of Interlocutory Application No. 4 in the present civil appeal,
an application was moved by the importer calling upon the Department to
produce the original declaration in the Court. No reply has been filed to the
B said I.A. till date. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the Department
had erred in rejecting the invoice submitted by the importer herein as incorrect.
Further, the Department received from the Hong Kong supplier a Fax message
dated 22. 7 .1996. That was produced before the Commissioner. In that message, "".
he had explained that the manufacturer of the impugned goods was getting
c .export rebates and, therefore, it is possible that the manufacturer had over-
invoiced the price in order to claim more rebate. The goods were of Chinese
origin. In the Fax message it is further stated by the foreign supplier that he
was required to show the export value on the higher side in order to claim
the incentives given by his Government. This explanation of the foreign
supplier, in the present case, had been accepted by the Commissioner. In his
D order, the Commissioner has not ruled out over-invoicing of the export value
by the foreign supplier in order to obtain incentives from his Government. For
the aforestated reasons, we find no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the
Tribunal.

8. Before concluding, we may point out that in the present case at the
E stage of show cause notice, the Department invoked Rule 8 on the ground
that the invoice submitted by the importer was incorrect. In Eicher Tractors
(supra) this Court observed that Rule 4(1) of the Customs Valuation Rules
refers to the transaction value. Utilization of the word 'the' as definite article
indicated that what should be accepted as the transaction. value for the
F purpose of assessment under the Customs Act is the price actually paid by
the importer for the particular transaction, unless it is unacceptable for the
reasons set out in Rule 4(2). In the said judgment, it has been further held
that, the word 'payable' in Rule 4(1) also refers to the "transaction value"
and payability in respect of the transaction envisaged a situation where
payment of price stood deferred. Therefore, this decision of the Supreme
G Court directs the Revenue to decide the validity of the particular value instead
of rejecting the transaction value. We wish, however, to clarify that it is still
open to the Department based on evidence, to show that the declared price
is not the price at which like goods are sold or offered for sale ordinarily, \
which words occur in Section 14(1). Lastly, it is important to note that in the
H above decision of this Court in Eicher Tractors (supra) this Court has held
COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA v. SOUTH INDIA TELEVISION (P) LTD. [KAPADIA, J.) } 07
that the Department has to proceed sequentially under Rules 5, 6 onwards A
and it is not open to the Department to invoke Rule 8 without sequentially
complying with Rules 5, 6 and 7 even in cases where the transaction value
is to be rejected under Rule 4. In the present case, the show cause notice
indicates that the Department had invoked Rule 8 without complying with the
earlier rules.
B
9. For the aforestated reasons, we find no infirmity in the impugned
judgment of the Tribunal and accordingly Civil Appeal No. 1137/2002 is
dismissed with no order as to costs.

Civil Appeal Nos. 551712004 and 551812004
c
10. These two c'ivil appeals are a sequel to our judgment delivered today
in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Mis South India Television (P)
ltd. vide Civil Appeal No. 1137/2002. We need not refer the present set of the
· facts in detail once again. However, the Tribunal has held on facts that"the
import invoices issued by Hong Kong traders and the export declarations D
filed by the same traders before Hong Kong Customs bear different values.
No explanation whatsoever has been given for quoting two different values.
Further, the importers in the present cases have failed to tile the manufacturer's
invoices in support of the value shown In the import invoices. On the other
hand, in the earlier matter (in the case of Mis South lluJla Television (P) Ltd.)
a detailed explanation was offered regarding the Oovemment giving incentives E
to exporters In China, which explanation ls not there in the present cases. For
the aforestated reasons, we find no Infirmity in the judgment of the Tribunal
which has decided the matter In favour of the Department.

11. Accordingly, both these Civil Appeal Nos. SS 17 and SS 18 of 2004 F
filed by the Importers arc dismissed with no order as to costs.

S.K.S. Appeals dismissed: