Transaction value of imported condensers cannot be rejected on a stray comparison import without reliable proof of identity.

Declared transaction value of imported condensers could not be rejected merely by relying on a single higher-priced contemporaneous import, because the department failed to prove that the goods were truly identical in brand, origin or specifications. No reliable examination report or other contemporaneous material established equivalence, and the record did not disclose sufficient statutory grounds to displace the declared value. On that basis, the demand for duty, interest and penalty could not be sustained, and the impugned order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared value of the imported condensers could be rejected and enhanced merely on the basis of a stray contemporaneous import of allegedly identical goods, and whether the demand, interest and penalty could be sustained on that basis.

Analysis: The value was enhanced only by comparing the appellants' imports with one import by another importer at a much higher price. The goods imported by the two importers were not shown, on reliable evidence, to be identical in brand, origin or specifications. No examination report or other contemporaneous material established that the appellants' goods were branded goods of the same manufacturer as the comparison import. The department also failed to rely on any other contemporaneous import to displace the declared transaction value. Mere comparison with a single stray bill of entry for a small quantity was insufficient to reject the declared value, especially when the imports had already been provisionally assessed and finalised and the record did not show the statutory grounds necessary for rejection of transaction value.

Conclusion: The rejection of the declared value was not justified, and the demand of duty, interest and penalty could not be sustained. The appeal was allowed and the impugned order was set aside.

---