Related-party import valuation turns on proof that the relationship did not affect price or that declared value matches a valid benchmark.

Related-party import valuation under the Customs Valuation Rules requires the importer to show that the relationship did not influence the declared price, or that the declared value closely approximates a valid test value. Acceptance depends on surrounding circumstances, pricing practice, and proof that the relationship did not affect value under Rule 4(3)(a), or on comparison with a benchmark value under Rule 4(3)(b). On the evidence, the claimed discount was unsupported by proof of additional responsibilities, risk transfer, cost recovery, or profit structure, and the declared value did not closely match the price charged to unrelated buyers. The declared transaction value was therefore rejected and comparable unrelated-sale pricing was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared transaction value of imports from a related foreign supplier was liable to be rejected and whether the value could be determined on the basis of prices at which the same goods were sold to unrelated buyers.

Analysis: The appellant was a related person to the foreign supplier within the meaning of the Customs Valuation Rules. That relationship by itself did not mandate rejection of the declared value, but the transaction value could be accepted only if the relationship had not influenced the price. Under Rule 4(3)(a), the surrounding circumstances of the sale and the pricing practice had to show that the relationship did not affect the value. Under Rule 4(3)(b), the importer could establish acceptability by showing that the declared value closely approximated a test value, having regard to the nature of the goods, the industry, and commercial significance of the difference. On the evidence, the higher discount claimed by the appellant was not supported by proof of additional responsibilities, risk transfer, cost recovery, or profit structure. The price charged to unrelated buyers was materially higher and the declared value did not closely approximate that benchmark. The difference in pricing was therefore treated as influenced by the relationship.

Conclusion: The declared transaction value was rightly rejected and valuation based on the price at which same or similar goods were sold to unrelated buyers was upheld in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: In related-party imports, transaction value is acceptable only if the importer proves that the relationship did not influence price or that the declared value closely approximates a valid test value; absent such proof, the declared value may be rejected and comparable unrelated-sale prices adopted.

---