Transaction value cannot be rejected on price difference alone when commercial explanations for variation remain unrebutted.

Customs authorities could not reject the declared transaction value of imported overlay tissue paper merely because another import reflected a higher price. The supplier's explanation that the goods differed in quality, gsm and source mills provided a commercial basis for the price variation, and no contrary material was produced to discredit that explanation or show that the declared price was not genuine. Mere price difference between two transactions was therefore insufficient to discard the transaction value. The declared value had to be accepted for assessment, and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the customs authorities were justified in rejecting the declared transaction value of the imported goods and enhancing the assessable value on the basis of a higher price from another import.

Analysis: The declared price of the imported overlay tissue paper was supported by the supplier's explanation that the goods supplied at different prices were of different quality, different gsm, and sourced from different mills. The variation in price was thus explained on commercial grounds. Mere difference between prices in two transactions was not sufficient by itself to reject the transaction value. In the absence of any contrary material from Revenue discrediting the explanation or showing that the declared price was not a genuine commercial price, the transaction value could not be discarded.

Conclusion: The rejection of the appellant's transaction value was unjustified, and the goods were required to be assessed on the basis of the declared transaction value. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---