Customs transaction value must be accepted absent proof of rejection grounds; journal quotes and non-comparable imports cannot override contract price.

Customs valuation requires acceptance of the declared transaction value where the price actually paid or payable is supported by a genuine contract, a letter of credit at the contracted rate, and no proven ground for rejection. Indicative international journal quotations do not, by themselves, establish a higher assessable value, and imports relied on for comparison must be truly comparable in quantity, timing and commercial circumstances. Where the importer's own contemporaneous transactions show lower prices for similar goods, and the goods are imported in large break-bulk quantities, price variation may be explained. Payment of duty under protest does not amount to acceptance of enhancement. The enhancement based on journal quotations and non-comparable imports was not sustainable, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared contract invoice price was liable to be accepted as the transaction value for assessment, and whether enhancement of value based on international journal quotations and selected import prices was justified.

Analysis: The transaction value rule required acceptance of the price actually paid or payable for goods sold for export to India unless the case fell within the recognised exceptions. The declared value was supported by a direct contract with the foreign manufacturer, opening of letter of credit at the contracted rate, and absence of any finding that the invoice was not genuine. The journal prices were only indicative market trends and not confirmed contract prices. The relied-upon imports at other ports and the Chennai references were not shown to be truly comparable, particularly as quantity, timing, and commercial circumstances differed. The appellant's own contemporaneous import instances showed lower prices for similar goods, and the break-bulk nature and large quantity of the imports explained the price variation. Payment of duty under protest did not amount to acceptance of the enhanced value.

Conclusion: The declared transaction value was liable to be accepted and the enhancement based on journal quotations and non-comparable imports was not sustainable; the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In customs valuation, the declared transaction value must be accepted unless the department proves a valid ground to reject it, and indicative market quotations or non-comparable contemporaneous imports cannot by themselves displace the actual contracted price.

---