Declared customs value cannot be rejected on suspicion or marginal price differences without supporting material evidence.

A declared customs transaction value cannot be rejected or enhanced unless statutory grounds for doubt or inaccuracy are supported by material evidence. Earlier imports at a slightly higher price, without proof that the same origin or comparable conditions applied, were insufficient to displace the declared price. Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 did not apply to the first import because it was introduced later, and for later imports the record did not create a reasonable doubt about the truth or accuracy of the declared value. The valuation enhancement orders were therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the declared transaction value of the imported synthetic butyl rubber could be rejected and enhanced under the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988; (ii) Whether Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 applied to the first import and, in any event, there was material to create a reasonable doubt about the truth or accuracy of the declared value.

Issue (i): Whether the declared transaction value of the imported synthetic butyl rubber could be rejected and enhanced under the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988

Analysis: The declared price could be displaced only if the statutory conditions for rejection of transaction value were satisfied. The mere fact that earlier imports of similar goods had been made at a marginally higher price was not enough, by itself, to discard the actual price paid in international trade. In the absence of material showing that the declared value was not true or accurate, the authorities could not substitute another value merely on suspicion.

Conclusion: The rejection of the declared transaction value was not justified.

Issue (ii): Whether Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 applied to the first import and, in any event, there was material to create a reasonable doubt about the truth or accuracy of the declared value

Analysis: Rule 10A was introduced only after the first import and therefore had no application to that consignment. For the later imports, even assuming Rule 10A applied, the record did not disclose sufficient material to form a reasonable doubt about the truth or accuracy of the declared value. The relied-upon market material was not shown to relate to the same origin, and the price difference was only marginal, which indicated ordinary market variation rather than unreliability of the declared price.

Conclusion: Rule 10A did not justify rejection of the declared value, and the first import was outside its scope.

Final Conclusion: The valuation enhancement orders were unsustainable and the appeals succeeded on the issue of acceptance of the declared transaction value.

Ratio Decidendi: A declared customs transaction value cannot be rejected unless the statutory conditions for doubt or inaccuracy are supported by material evidence; a marginal price difference or unrelated market reference does not by itself permit enhancement.

---