Transaction value principle governs customs valuation, while excess-duty refund remains subject to unjust enrichment scrutiny.

Declared transaction value must be accepted for customs valuation where it reflects the actual agreed price and no recognised exception to the transaction value rule is shown; enhancement based only on a higher contemporaneous import price was unsustainable. The refund of duty collected in excess could not be finally granted on the basis of a chartered accountant's certificate alone, because further verification was required on unjust enrichment and possible credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The valuation issue was decided in favour of the importer, while the refund question was remanded for fresh determination by the adjudicating authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the declared transaction value of the imported consignment had to be accepted for customs valuation, and (ii) whether the refund of duty collected in excess was payable to the importer or required further examination for credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

Issue (i): Whether the declared transaction value of the imported consignment had to be accepted for customs valuation.

Analysis: The declared price was found to be the actual agreed price for the goods, namely US $ 73 per kilogram CIF. In the absence of any established exception to the transaction value rule, the value declared by the importer could not be enhanced merely on the basis of a higher contemporaneous import price. The valuation was therefore required to follow the transaction value principle.

Conclusion: The declared value had to be accepted at US $ 73 per kilogram CIF, and the enhancement to US $ 82.65 per kilogram was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund of duty collected in excess was payable to the importer or required further examination for credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

Analysis: The importer relied on a chartered accountant's certificate to show that the excess duty had not been passed on, but the certificate was treated only as a prima facie indication. Further verification was considered necessary before deciding the fate of the refund claim in accordance with the law governing unjust enrichment and credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

Conclusion: The question of refund was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh determination.

Final Conclusion: The valuation dispute was decided in favour of the importer, but the refund issue was left to be determined afresh by the adjudicating authority.

Ratio Decidendi: In customs valuation, the declared transaction value must be accepted unless a recognised exception is established, and any refund arising from excess duty must still be examined under the applicable unjust enrichment principles.

---