Customs transaction value needs reliable undervaluation evidence; a supplier website price list and unproved exclusive agency are insufficient.

Declared customs transaction value cannot be rejected merely because a foreign supplier's website price list shows a higher figure; the department must support enhancement with cogent evidence such as contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods or other reliable proof of undervaluation. On the facts noted, no such evidence was produced, so value enhancement was unsustainable. An unproved claim that the importer was an exclusive selling agent also did not attract the special-discount rule, because no agreement or other material established exclusive agency in India. The consequential confiscation, duty demand, interest and penalty therefore could not stand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the declared transaction value of the imported printing machine could be rejected and enhanced solely on the basis of the foreign supplier's price list available on its website in the absence of contemporaneous import evidence of identical or similar goods at higher prices; (ii) Whether the alleged status of the importer as an exclusive selling agent attracted Rule 4(2)(c) so as to justify rejection of the declared value.

Issue (i): Whether the declared transaction value of the imported printing machine could be rejected and enhanced solely on the basis of the foreign supplier's price list available on its website in the absence of contemporaneous import evidence of identical or similar goods at higher prices.

Analysis: The declared value can be rejected only on proof of under-valuation by cogent material, such as contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods in comparable quantities or other reliable evidence showing a higher assessable value. A supplier's price list is only a general quotation and does not by itself displace the declared transaction value or establish under-invoicing. In the absence of any such supporting evidence, enhancement of value merely from the website price list was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The issue is decided in favour of the assessee; the declared transaction value could not be rejected on the sole basis of the supplier's price list.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged status of the importer as an exclusive selling agent attracted Rule 4(2)(c) so as to justify rejection of the declared value.

Analysis: The claimed exclusive-agent arrangement was denied and no agreement or other evidence establishing sole selling agency or exclusive agency in India was produced. In the absence of proof of such special relationship or discount condition, Rule 4(2)(c) was not attracted.

Conclusion: The issue is decided in favour of the assessee; Rule 4(2)(c) was not applicable.

Final Conclusion: The enhancement of assessable value and the consequential confiscation, duty demand, interest and penalty could not be sustained, and the importer succeeded in the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Declared customs transaction value cannot be rejected merely because the supplier's price list shows a higher price; the department must prove undervaluation through reliable contemporaneous or comparable evidence, and an unproved allegation of exclusive agency does not by itself attract the special-discount exception.

---