Customs valuation requires proof of identical goods and contemporaneous higher imports before rejecting declared transaction value.

Declared transaction value could not be rejected and assessable value could not be enhanced on the basis of contemporaneous imports unless the compared goods first satisfied the definition of identical goods under Rule 2(c), including similarity in physical characteristics, quality and reputation, and were shown to have been imported contemporaneously at a higher value. The record did not show that this comparison was properly undertaken, and no valid reason was given for discarding the declared value. The disclosed manufacturer was not disputed, and the importer's documents indicated a price broadly consistent with the declaration, so enhancement of value was not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared transaction value could be rejected and the assessable value enhanced on the basis of contemporaneous imports said to be of identical goods under the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.

Analysis: For valuation under Rule 5, the authorities had to establish that the compared imports satisfied the definition of identical goods in Rule 2(c), including similarity in physical characteristics, quality and reputation, and that such goods were contemporaneously imported at a higher value. The record did not show that this comparison was undertaken. The authorities also did not state any valid reason for rejecting the declared transaction value. The manufacturer disclosed in the import documents was not disputed, and the documents produced by the importer indicated a price broadly consistent with the declared value.

Conclusion: The enhancement of value was not sustainable and the declared transaction value could not be rejected.

---