Valuation of re-melted zinc ingots must rely on comparable goods, not dissimilar high-grade imports, with transaction value retained.

Imported re-melted zinc ingots could not be valued by reference to electrolytic high grade zinc ingots because the goods were of a different grade and purity. The record showed that zinc is traded in distinct grades, and the appellant's consignments were closer to other re-melted zinc imports than to special high grade zinc. A valuation exercise based on dissimilar goods was impermissible, and the transaction value could not be rejected on that comparison. The Revenue's own material supported adoption of the lowest comparable transaction value, including re-melted zinc imports near the declared price. The Commissioner's valuation was therefore unsustainable and the appellants succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported zinc consignments, being re-melted zinc ingots, could be valued by comparison with electrolytic high grade zinc ingots and whether the transaction value was liable to be rejected.

Analysis: The imported goods were found to be re-melted zinc ingots with purity below the special high grade threshold. The material on record showed that zinc is marketed in different grades and that the consignments imported by the appellant were closer to other imports of re-melted zinc ingots than to electrolytic high grade zinc ingots. A valuation exercise based on dissimilar goods was impermissible. Even on the Revenue's own material, the lowest comparable transaction value had to be adopted, and the record also showed re-melted zinc imports at prices close to the appellant's declared price. There was no basis for remand because the Revenue's case failed on the existing record and the transaction value could not be rejected on the comparison made by the Commissioner.

Conclusion: The valuation adopted by the Commissioner was unsustainable, the transaction value was not liable to be discarded, and the appellants succeeded.

---