Customs valuation must rely on contemporaneous identical imports; an earlier smaller import could not justify rejecting the declared value.

Declared value under the Customs Act and Customs Valuation Rules must be tested against contemporaneous imports of identical goods; an earlier import more than three months prior, involving a smaller quantity, was not a proper benchmark for later valuation. Quantity difference was a relevant valuation factor, and the record contained no specific ground to reject the declared value, while the alleged downward trend in international prices was unsupported by evidence. Enhancement of value on the basis of the earlier bill of entry was therefore unsustainable, and the declared value could not be rejected on the facts found.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared value of imported goods could be rejected and enhanced on the basis of a prior import of allegedly identical goods, despite the difference in quantity and the time gap between the two imports.

Analysis: The declared value had to be tested under the Customs Act and the Customs Valuation Rules on the basis of contemporaneous import of identical goods. The earlier import relied upon by the department was more than three months prior to the subject import and covered a smaller quantity, so it was not an appropriate benchmark for valuation of the later import. Quantity difference was a relevant factor in valuation, and the record did not contain any specific reason for rejecting the declared value. The asserted downward trend in international prices was also unsupported by evidence.

Conclusion: The enhancement of value on the basis of the earlier bill of entry was unsustainable, and the declared value could not be rejected on the facts found.

---