Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007 › Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007

Rule 8. Rejection of declared value

Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007

Official text

Rule 8. Rejection of declared value. —

(1) When the proper officer has reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of the value declared in relation to any export goods, he may ask the exporter of such goods to furnish further information including documents or other evidence and if, after receiving such further information, or in the absence of a response of such exporter, the proper officer still has reasonable doubt about the truth or accuracy of the value so declared, the transaction value shall be deemed to have not been determined in accordance with sub-rule (1) of rule 3. 2) At the request of an exporter, the proper officer shall intimate the exporter in writing the ground for doubting the truth or accuracy of the value declared in relation to the export goods by such exporter and provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard, before taking a final decision under sub-rule (1).

Explanation. —

(1) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that-

(i) This rule by itself does not provide a method for determination of value, it provides a mechanism and procedure for rejection of declared value in cases where there is reasonable doubt that the declared value does not represent the transaction value; where the declared value is rejected, the value shall be determined by proceeding sequentially in accordance with rules 4 to 6.

(ii) The declared value shall be accepted where the proper officer is satisfied about the truth or accuracy of the declared value after the said inquiry in consultation with the exporter.

(iii) The proper officer shall have the powers to raise doubts on the declared value based on certain reasons which may include-

(a) the significant variation in value at which goods of like kind and quality exported at or about the same time in comparable quantities in a comparable commercial transaction were assessed.

(b) the significantly higher value compared to the market value of goods of like kind and quality at the time of export.

Judgments on Rule 8

Mihir Maheshkumar Chevli vs Union Of India — Gujarat High Court, 18 Feb 2022. Under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, seized goods must be returned to the person from whom they were seized if no confiscation notice under clause (a) of Section 124 is issued within six months of seizure (or…
M/S Jairath International And Another vs Union Of India And Others — Punjab-Haryana High Court, 4 Oct 2019. The customs department has no power under Rule 16 of the Drawback Rules, 1995 or the Valuation Rules, 2007 to re-assess a shipping bill duly assessed at the time of export, because goods already exported are not 'export…
Mungad Strips And Alloys Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner, Customs-Indore — CESTAT, 23 Jun 2026. Once a shipping bill is assessed and a Let Export Order issued, the adjudicating authority cannot reopen the assessment, and rejection of transaction value under the Export Valuation Rules affects only the assessable…
Standard Cartons Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs Export Icd… — CESTAT, 2 Apr 2026. An exporter who declares the transaction value reflected in its export documents cannot have its goods confiscated under section 113(i) or be penalized under sections 114(iii) and 114AA merely because the proper officer…
Commissioner Of Customs Export vs Ravindra Kumar — Delhi High Court, 18 Sep 2025. Where a penalty under Section 114 has already been imposed and upheld, the Court may, having regard to the limited role of the person, treat it as sufficient and decline to impose the further Section 114AA penalty,…
Modak Dyeing And Printing Co Pvt Ltd vs New Delhi-Icd Tkd — CESTAT, 29 Jul 2025. A proper officer may reject a declared transaction value and re-determine the assessable value, but cannot alter the transaction value itself; export benefits such as drawback and MEIS are computed on the FOB…
M/S Narula Tools International vs Commissioner, Commissionerate Of… — Punjab-Haryana High Court, 18 Oct 2019. A show cause notice issued after 1.10.2017 invoking Rule 16 of the repealed Drawback Rules, 1995 to recover drawback or reassess the value of goods already exported is unsustainable, both for want of saving under Rule…
Century Knitters (India) Ltd. And… vs Union Of India And Others — Punjab-Haryana High Court, 18 Oct 2019. A show cause notice issued after 01.10.2017 invoking Rule 16 of the repealed Drawback Rules, 1995 is not sustainable in view of Rule 20(2) of the Drawback Rules, 2017, the 1995 Rules contain no mechanism for raising…
Zee Knits And Weaves Private Limited And… vs Union Of India And Ors — Punjab-Haryana High Court, 18 Oct 2019. A demand of duty drawback under Rule 16 of the Drawback Rules, 1995 pursuant to a show cause notice issued more than five years after export/assessment or after 01.10.2017 (when the 1995 Rules stood repealed) is not…
M/S Famina Knit Fabs vs Union Of India And Others — Punjab-Haryana High Court, 20 Sep 2019. A demand of duty drawback as erroneously or excessively availed is bad in law where the rule invoked (Rule 16, Drawback Rules, 1995) prescribes no machinery or procedure for determining and demanding such drawback, and…
M/S.Umang Overseas vs The Commissioner Of Customs — Madras High Court, 1 Mar 2012. Goods seized under Section 110 must be dealt with under Section 110A — releasable to the owner pending adjudication on a bond with such security and conditions as the Commissioner requires — and once the adjudicating…