Customs valuation requires comparable goods at the same commercial level; dissimilar denier and quantity could not justify enhancement.

Declared transaction value for imported Nylon 66 yarn could be rejected only where buyer-seller relationship influenced price or where Revenue proved a valid comparison with identical or similar goods imported at about the same time, at the same commercial level and in comparable quantity. A solitary comparable import of 210 denier yarn by another importer was insufficient because the appellant's goods were 840 to 1890 denier yarn imported in much larger quantities, and contemporaneous imports of comparable goods by an unrelated buyer were at similar prices. The record also indicated that the two products were not commercially interchangeable, and no proper adjustment justified discarding the declared value. The rejection and enhancement of value were therefore unjustified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared transaction value of imported Nylon 66 yarn could be rejected and enhanced under the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 on the basis of a purported comparable import of different denier and much smaller quantity.

Analysis: The declared value could be rejected only if the relationship between buyer and seller influenced the price, or if the Revenue established a valid comparison with identical or similar goods imported at or about the same time and at the same commercial level and quantity. The only relied-upon comparable was a small import of 210 denier yarn by another importer, whereas the appellant's imports were of 840 to 1890 denier yarn in substantially larger quantities. The record also showed contemporaneous imports by an unrelated buyer of comparable goods at similar prices, and the evidence indicated that 210 denier yarn and the higher denier tyre-cord yarn were not commercially interchangeable. No proper adjustment or adequate reason was given for discarding the appellant's declared value.

Conclusion: The rejection of the transaction value and the enhancement to US $ 5.80 per Kg. were unjustified, and the appeal succeeded.

---