Declared transaction value cannot be rejected without proof of invoice manipulation or extra consideration in customs valuation disputes.

Declared transaction value for imported goods could not be rejected merely on the basis of one earlier contemporaneous import of smaller quantity and an alleged price variation, where the impugned import was under a bulk contract. The importer supported the declared price with material from the New Zealand Trade Commissioner, and the department produced no documentary evidence of invoice manipulation or any extra consideration. On these facts, the transaction value was not validly rejected under the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, and the enhancement of assessable value could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared transaction value of the imported goods could be rejected and the assessable value enhanced on the basis of a single contemporaneous import and alleged price variation.

Analysis: The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the enhancement was based on one import of smaller quantity in an earlier month, whereas the impugned import was of a much larger quantity under a bulk contract. The importer had also placed material from the New Zealand Trade Commissioner supporting the declared price. No documentary evidence was produced to show manipulation of the invoice value or payment of any extra consideration. The declared transaction value had not been validly rejected in terms of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, and the contemporaneous import relied upon by the department was not sufficient, by itself, to displace the declared value.

Conclusion: The rejection of the declared value was not justified and the enhancement of value could not be sustained.

---