Related-party import valuation: transaction value stands unless price influence is proved and comparable imports are properly adjusted.

In related-party import transactions, transaction value remains acceptable unless the Revenue proves that the relationship influenced price. Contemporaneous supplies to other group entities at the same price supported the declared value, and marketing or distribution functions alone did not justify rejection. A 25% loading based on a smaller comparable import was also unsustainable because proper quantity and commercial level adjustments were required under the valuation rules. The declared transaction value was therefore accepted for assessment and the enhancement of assessable value was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the transaction value of the imported goods could be rejected merely because the importer and supplier were related persons; (ii) Whether the declared value was liable to be loaded by 25% on the basis of the price of comparable imports after making adjustments for quantity and commercial level differences.

Issue (i): Whether the transaction value of the imported goods could be rejected merely because the importer and supplier were related persons.

Analysis: The customs valuation scheme permits acceptance of transaction value where the buyer and seller are related, provided the relationship does not influence price. The record showed contemporaneous supplies at the same price to other overseas group entities, and the Revenue did not rebut the evidence of uniform pricing. The importer's marketing and distribution activities did not, by themselves, justify rejection of the declared value. The finding of relationship, without proof of price influence or absence of arm's length dealing, was insufficient to discard the transaction value.

Conclusion: The transaction value was not liable to be rejected merely on the ground of relationship, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the declared value was liable to be loaded by 25% on the basis of the price of comparable imports after making adjustments for quantity and commercial level differences.

Analysis: The comparison relied on a smaller import by an unrelated buyer, whereas the assessee imported goods in much larger quantities. The price difference had to be assessed with due account of commercial level and quantity level adjustments under the valuation rules. The evidence indicated that the assessee's declared value, after appropriate adjustments, could not be rejected on the basis of a non-comparable sale. The contemporaneous pricing evidence and the absence of any proven mutuality-based price manipulation supported acceptance of the declared value.

Conclusion: The 25% loading was not sustainable on the basis of the stated comparable import, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned enhancement of assessable value was set aside and the appeal was allowed, with acceptance of the declared transaction value for assessment.

Ratio Decidendi: In related-party import transactions, transaction value must be accepted unless the Revenue proves that the relationship influenced price or shows a reliable comparable value after proper adjustments for quantity and commercial differences.

---