Customs valuation cannot rest on unverified internal records; transaction value prevails absent reliable evidence of under-valuation.

Declared customs value of imported computer products and accessories could not be rejected merely on the basis of a price list and a floppy recovered from the importers' premises, because the recovered material was said to have been prepared for banking purposes and was not shown to be a legally applicable or reliable basis for valuation. In the absence of evidence displacing the invoice price and transaction value, the allegation of misdeclaration of value failed. The declared transaction value was accepted and the challenge to enhancement of value was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared value of the imported computer products/accessories could be rejected and enhanced on the basis of the price list and a floppy recovered from the importers' premises, and whether the allegation of misdeclaration of value was sustainable.

Analysis: The enhanced valuation was founded on prices reflected in a recovered floppy and on a price list that was not shown to be legally applicable to the imported goods. The material recovered from the importers' premises was stated to have been prepared for banking purposes and was not a legally recognised basis for determining customs value. The declared invoice value and transaction value were not displaced by reliable evidence establishing under-valuation.

Conclusion: The rejection of the declared value and the finding of misdeclaration were unsustainable. The transaction value was accepted and the appeal was allowed.

---