Declared import value cannot be rejected without comparable goods or evidence of under-invoicing in valuation disputes.

Imported yarn could not be revalued on the basis of a contemporaneous import that was not shown to be identical or similar in origin, manufacturing process, or quality. The imported goods were described as centrifugal yarn of Russian origin, while the relied-upon consignment was Chinese continuous spinning yarn with high glue, and the lower authorities failed to address the objection that the two were not comparable. In the absence of any independent material suggesting under-invoicing, the declared assessable value could not be rejected, and invocation of Rule 10A was not justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported goods could be valued on the basis of contemporaneous imports of allegedly comparable goods, and whether Rule 10A could be invoked to reject the declared assessable value.

Analysis: The imported yarn was of Russian origin and its description and manufacturing process, as reflected in the invoice and quality certificate, showed it to be centrifugal yarn. The contemporaneous import relied upon for valuation was of Chinese origin and was described as continuous spinning yarn with high glue, indicating a different process and quality. The lower authorities had not examined the appellant's objection that the two consignments were neither identical nor similar. In the absence of comparable goods and with no other material indicating under-invoicing, the declared value could not be rejected merely on the basis of the cited import.

Conclusion: The contemporaneous import was not a valid basis for valuation and Rule 10A was not rightly invoked.

Final Conclusion: The enhancement of assessable value was unsustainable, and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the relied-upon contemporaneous imports are not identical or similar in origin, process, and quality, and no independent evidence of under-invoicing exists, the declared import value cannot be rejected.

---