Related-party import valuation fails unless Revenue proves price influence with disclosed evidence and rebuttal material.

In related-party import valuation disputes, transaction value cannot be rejected merely because the importer and foreign supplier are connected. Revenue must produce disclosed material showing that the relationship influenced the price, and the importer may rely on invoices and comparable pricing to support the declared value. Where Revenue fails to rebut that evidence, continuation of an arbitrary loading or extra duty deposit is unsustainable, and valuation must be based on the declared price under the Customs Valuation Rules. The commentary also notes that assessments were directed at declared prices from 31-1-2010, with consequential relief, while Revenue remained free to act afresh on better evidence and due notice.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared value of imported goods could be rejected and loading of assessable value continued merely because the importer and foreign supplier were related, and whether the assessments had to be made at the declared value from 31-1-2010 in the absence of rebuttal evidence from Revenue.

Analysis: Relationship between importer and supplier, by itself, is not a sufficient ground to reject the transaction value. Revenue was required to produce material showing that the relationship influenced the price and to disclose the evidence relied upon. The importer had produced invoices and other material to show that the discount structure and pricing were at par with unrelated buyers, while Revenue did not rebut that evidence with any cogent material. The continuing 1% extra duty deposit was found arbitrary, past practice could not by itself justify continuation, and the impugned order also failed to disclose a proper basis for valuation under the Customs Valuation Rules for the later period.

Conclusion: The declared value could not be rejected on the material available, and the assessments were directed to be made at the declared prices with effect from 31-1-2010, with consequential benefits.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the appeal succeeded in favour of the importer, while leaving Revenue free to proceed afresh if supported by better evidence and due notice.

Ratio Decidendi: In valuation disputes involving related parties, the transaction value cannot be displaced unless Revenue proves with disclosed evidence that the relationship affected the price.

---