Transaction value in customs valuation cannot be rejected solely because similar goods were imported elsewhere at higher prices.

Declared transaction value of imported goods cannot be rejected merely because similar goods entered through other customs stations at higher prices. The valuation scheme requires acceptance of the transaction value unless it is shown to be unreliable on recognised grounds, and commercial factors such as quantity and market conditions may explain price variation. Where the importer's contract price is supported by supplier documents and no valid basis exists to discard it, confiscation and penalty based on rejection of value also fail. On the facts noted, the higher comparable prices did not justify treating the declared price as non-commercial, so the declared value was wrongly rejected and consequential penal action was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared transaction value of imported goods could be rejected merely because similar goods were imported at a higher price through other customs stations, and whether confiscation and penalty could survive on that basis.

Analysis: The import was made under a contract at a negotiated price, supported by the supplier's purchase documents and by the fact that similar goods were being imported at different prices at different ports. Under the valuation scheme, assessment must ordinarily proceed on the transaction value unless the declared value is shown to be tainted on recognised grounds. A mere higher comparable price in another transaction is not, by itself, a valid basis to discard the declared value, especially where commercial variables such as quantity and market conditions can explain price differences. The value difference relied upon was also not so large as to render the declared price non-commercial. Since rejection of the declared value was unsustainable, the foundation for confiscation and penalty also failed.

Conclusion: The declared transaction value was wrongly rejected, and the confiscation and penalty were not sustainable. The appeal succeeded in favour of the importer.

---