Transaction value in customs valuation cannot be rejected on marginal price variation alone without corroborative evidence.

Declared transaction value in customs valuation cannot be rejected and replaced with comparable import values unless the Revenue produces corroborative material showing that the invoice price is incorrect. A marginal price variation over a few months, without more, is insufficient to establish undervaluation, especially where the importer's earlier contract and supporting clearance documents explain the declared value. On the facts discussed, the department did not rebut the transaction value or address the contractual explanation, so rejection of the declared value and re-determination of assessable value were not justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared transaction value of the imported goods could be rejected and the value re-determined on the basis of comparable imports without sufficient corroborative evidence.

Analysis: The declared value had been rejected under Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 and enhanced under Rule 6 by reference to other imports. The invoices and connected clearance documents were produced, and the Revenue was required to establish the incorrectness of the assessable value. A marginal variation in prices over a few months, by itself, was held insufficient to conclude undervaluation, particularly when the appellant's contract was entered into earlier and the department did not address the contractual explanation or place any corroborative material to justify rejection of the transaction value.

Conclusion: The rejection of the declared value and the re-determination of assessable value were not justified, and the appeal succeeded.

---