Declared customs value cannot be enhanced without first rejecting transaction value; contemporaneous imports alone were insufficient.

Declared transaction value in customs valuation could not be rejected on the materials relied upon by Revenue where Rule 10(b) was satisfied and no recorded reason existed to disbelieve the declared value. Contemporaneous imports did not support enhancement, as the record did not show higher-priced imports from the same supplier after the subject import. Sequential application of the Customs Valuation Rules can begin only after the transaction value is first rejected, consistent with the principle in Eicher Tractors. On these facts, the assessable value could not be enhanced and the declared value remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared transaction value of the imported goods could be rejected and the assessable value enhanced on the basis of contemporaneous imports, and whether the Customs Valuation Rules could be applied sequentially without first rejecting the declared value.

Analysis: The declared value was accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals) because the requirements of Rule 10(b) of the Customs Valuation Rules were found to have been satisfied, and no reason had been recorded by the original authority for disbelieving the declared value. The record also did not support the Revenue's contention that there were higher-priced imports from the same supplier after the subject import. The decision further noted that sequential application of the valuation rules could arise only after rejection of the transaction value, in line with the principle stated by the Supreme Court in Eicher Tractors.

Conclusion: The declared value could not be disturbed on the materials relied upon by the Revenue, and the enhancement of value was unsustainable.

---