Customs valuation accepts transaction value only when price reductions have a clear contractual basis; unexplained post-import cuts fail.

Customs valuation under Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 turns on the price actually paid or payable, unless the reduction depends on a condition or consideration that cannot be valued. A contractual price adjustment supported by the loading-port inspection and invoice was accepted for the first consignment because the reduction had a discernible commercial basis and was not shown to be false or contrived. For the second consignment, a later private settlement reduced the price despite a conforming loading-port certificate, but no ascertainable basis for the cut was disclosed. The Tribunal treated that unexplained reduction as an indeterminable condition and upheld the original invoice value.

---

---

Issues: Whether the transaction value declared for imported raw petroleum coke had to be accepted for customs valuation, and whether the reduced price claimed after post-import negotiations could be accepted where the contractual inspection certificate at the port of loading bound the parties.

Analysis: The accepted legal framework under Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 is that the price actually paid or payable is to be accepted as transaction value, unless the sale is subject to a condition or consideration for which a value cannot be determined. On the first consignment, the supplier's certificate and invoice showed a contractual reduction in price for excess moisture, and the customs authorities did not show that the report was false or contrived. The contract made the loading-port test and the commercial adjustment between buyer and seller determinative, so the reduced price was the proper transaction value. On the second consignment, the loading-port inspection certificate showed conformity with the purchase specifications, and the later reduction was recorded only in a private settlement without disclosing any basis for the price cut. In the absence of any ascertainable reason for the reduction, the Tribunal treated the lower price as reflecting an undisclosed condition or consideration whose value could not be determined, and held that the initially agreed price had to be adopted.

Conclusion: The reduced price was accepted for the first consignment, but the reduced post-negotiation price was rejected for the second consignment and the original invoice price was upheld for customs valuation.

Ratio Decidendi: For customs valuation, the declared transaction value must be accepted only where any price reduction is supported by a discernible contractual basis or other determinable consideration; an unexplained post-import reduction cannot displace the original agreed price.

---