Valuation of imported goods must rest on proper comparables; materially different origin and timing cannot justify enhancement.

Declared value of imported goods cannot be enhanced on the basis of comparison with imports that are materially different in country of origin and time of import. The tribunal found that reliance on similar goods imported from Taiwan, when the goods under assessment were imported from China and in a different period, was not a proper basis for valuation. The enhancement was therefore set aside. The classification challenge did not survive because it had already been conceded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared value of the imported goods could be enhanced on the basis of import data relating to goods imported from a different country and at a different time.

Analysis: The declared value was enhanced by relying on the import of similar goods by another importer. The imports relied upon were from Taiwan, whereas the present imports were from China, and the imports were also made in a different period. On these facts, the comparison adopted for enhancement of value was not a proper basis for determining the value of the imported goods.

Conclusion: The enhancement of value was not sustainable and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent of valuation, while the challenge to classification did not survive because it had been conceded earlier.

Ratio Decidendi: Valuation of imported goods cannot be enhanced on the basis of comparable imports that are materially distinguishable by country of origin and time of import.

---