Customs Act, 1962 › Chapter V — Levy of, and Exemption from, Customs Duties

Section 14. Valuation of goods

Customs Act, 1962

Bare Act

Valuation of goods. —

(1) For the purposes of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), or any other law for the time being in force, the value of the imported goods and export goods shall be the transaction value of such goods, that is to say, the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to India for delivery at the time and place of importation, or as the case may be, for export from India for delivery at the time and place of exportation, where the buyer and seller of the goods are not related and price is the sole consideration for the sale subject to such other conditions as may be specified in the rules made in this behalf:

Provided that such transaction value in the case of imported goods shall include, in addition to the price as aforesaid, any amount paid or payable for costs and services, including commissions and brokerage, engineering, design work, royalties and licence fees, costs of transportation to the place of importation, insurance, loading, unloading and handling charges to the extent and in the manner specified in the rules made in this behalf:

Provided further that the rules made in this behalf may provide for,-

(i) the circumstances in which the buyer and the seller shall be deemed to be related;

(ii) the manner of determination of value in respect of goods when there is no sale, or the buyer and the seller are related, or price is not the sole consideration for the sale or in any other case;

(iii) the manner of acceptance or rejection of value declared by the importer or exporter, as the case may be, where the proper officer has reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of such value, and determination of value for the purposes of this section:

(iv) the additional obligations of the importer in respect of any class of imported goods and the checks to be exercised, including the circumstances and manner of exercising thereof, as the Board may specify, where, the Board has reason to believe that the value of such goods may not be declared truthfully or accurately, having regard to the trend of declared value of such goods or any other relevant criteria Provided also that such price shall be calculated with reference to the rate of exchange as in force on the date on which a bill of entry is presented under section 46, or a shipping bill of export, as the case may be, is presented under section 50.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), if the Board is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, fix tariff values for any class of imported goods or export goods, having regard to the trend of value of such or like goods, and where any such tariff values are fixed, the duty shall be chargeable with reference to such tariff value.

Explanation. — For the purposes of this section -

(a) rate of exchange" means the rate of exchange -

(i) determined by the Board, or

(ii) ascertained in such manner as the Board may direct, for the conversion of Indian currency into foreign currency or foreign currency into Indian currency;

(b)"foreign currency" and ''Indian currency" have the meanings respectively assigned to them in clause (m) and clause (q) of section 2 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999).

Judgments on Section 14

  • Maruti Fabric Impex vs Ce & Cgst Noida — CESTAT, 7 Sep 2026. A written acceptance of value enhancement waives only the limited procedural right to a speaking order under Section 17(5) and, there being no estoppel against a statute, cannot foreclose the importer's statutory right…
  • Jsw Steel Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Ii), Chennai — CESTAT, 4 Sep 2026. Where excess export duty was never part of any assessment and comes to light only upon a subsequent reassessment, limitation for refund under Section 27(1B)(c) runs from the date of that reassessment, not from the…
  • Shri Gagan Vohra vs Commissioner Central Excise, Customs,… — CESTAT, 24 Aug 2026. A declared transaction value may be rejected under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 and re-determined sequentially under Rules 4–9, because voluntary Section 108 statements to Customs officers (who are not…
  • Sterling Meta Plast India Pvt Ltd vs -Kolkata(Admn Airport) — CESTAT, 26 May 2026. Franchise fees/royalties paid to a brand licensor for post-importation rights of sale and distribution, and AMP expenses or corporate marketing fees incurred for the importer's own Indian business, are not includible in…
  • Haji S International vs Commissioner Of Customs-Air Cargo… — CESTAT, 30 Apr 2026. Where the repealing 2017 Drawback Rules contain a specific saving provision in rule 20(2), section 159A of the Customs Act does not apply, and recovery of drawback under rule 16 or 16A of the repealed 1995 Rules cannot…
  • Mahesh Agarwal Partner vs Cc Sea Ch - Ii — CESTAT, 13 Mar 2026. Where higher-value parallel documents are recovered from the importer's own possession and corroborated by voluntary Section 108 admissions and extra-commercial payments, declared transaction value may be rejected, the…
  • Mukesh Kumar vs Commissioner Of Customs (Ii), Chennai — CESTAT, 17 Feb 2026. Penalties under sections 112(b) and 114AA of the Customs Act can be imposed only where mens rea or active involvement is established, and retracted statements recorded u/s 108 cannot sustain duty demands unless tested…
  • M/S Xiaomi Technology India Private… vs Commissioner Of Customs Air… — CESTAT, 14 Nov 2025. Royalty and licence fee paid by an importer under agreements with IPR holders, not disclosed to the customs authorities, is includible in the assessable value under Rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007,…
  • Isgec Heavy Engineering Ltd vs Commissioner, Customs (Export)-New… — CESTAT, 16 Oct 2025. The FOB/transaction value of exported goods cannot be modified by any customs officer; re-determination under the Valuation Rules only fixes the assessable value, and drawback payable as a percentage of FOB must be…
  • M/S Patanjali Foods Limited (Formerly Known As M/S Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd.) Appellant(S) Versus Union Of India vs Union Of India — Supreme Court of India, 19 May 2025. Encashment of a bank guarantee furnished merely as security pursuant to a court's interim order cannot be treated as duty 'paid' under Section 27 of the Customs Act, so the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply…
  • P C Jain vs Kolkata-Port — CESTAT, 15 May 2025. A charge of undervaluation cannot be sustained on diary entries and statements alone without independent evidence such as NIDB data, market enquiry or contemporaneous higher values, and an adjudication in which…
  • M/S Coal India Ltd vs Commr.Of Customs(Port) Kolkata — Supreme Court of India, 1 May 2025. Payments made by an importer to the foreign supplier's Indian agent as a condition of sale, being product support services directly relatable to the importation, must be added to the transaction value under Rule 9(1)(e)…
  • Rajbir Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. — Delhi High Court, 8 Apr 2025. Where Rule 16 of the Duty Drawback Rules prescribes no period of limitation, the general three-year limitation cannot be presumed to apply by default, especially where there are strong suspicions of fraudulent availment…
  • Commissioner Of Customs Import 1 Zone 1 vs M/S Essar Bulk Terminal Salaya Limited — CESTAT, 3 Apr 2025. Alleged overvaluation without duty consequence cannot sustain confiscation under section 111(m) or penalties under sections 112/114AA, and the price of goods for export to a country other than India is expressly barred…
  • Vicky Ramchand Asrani vs Mumbai-Air Port — CESTAT, 19 Dec 2024. Illicit import of gold must be deterred, but not by alienation of possession from its owner — where goods are merely restricted and not truly prohibited, absolute confiscation under section 125 fails and the owner is…
  • Ms Kseg India International vs Ce & Cgst Noida — CESTAT, 18 Jul 2024. Enhancement of the value of imported goods based on a DGOV circular, without rejecting the declared value under Rule 12 and applying the Valuation Rules sequentially from Rule 4 onwards, is unsustainable, and goods that…
  • T N Malhotra vs Principal Commissioner, Customs-New… — CESTAT, 4 Jun 2024. The transaction value of past imports can be enhanced only on the basis of invoices or other documents pertaining to those very imports; loading the values of live consignments onto past bills of entry in the absence of…
  • Navakar Impex Pvt Ltd vs Chennai (Port Export) — CESTAT, 29 May 2024. If the charge of under-valuation cannot be supported either by evidence or information about comparable imports, the benefit of doubt must go to the importer and the invoice price has to be accepted as the transaction…
  • Acer India P Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Ii), Chennai — CESTAT, 8 May 2024. A differential CVD demand resting on an MRP re-determination made otherwise than in the prescribed manner under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act and the 2008 Rules cannot be sustained, the extended period cannot be…
  • M/S Global Technologies And Research vs Principal Commissioner Of Customs New… — Supreme Court of India, 15 Mar 2024. Where the Customs Act prescribes no limitation for the Committee of Commissioners to direct an appeal under Section 129A(2), its decision must still be taken within a reasonable time, and where earlier imports of…

All 92 judgments