Customs valuation: commission and alleged related-party link did not justify loading the declared import value.

Declared import value could not be rejected or enhanced merely because the importer was entitled to commission. Contemporaneous import invoices and comparable supplies supported the transaction value, and the revenue failed to dislodge the finding that no material showed the declared price was not genuine. An agency arrangement alone did not prove mutuality of interest or establish a relationship affecting price. In the absence of proof that the relationship influenced valuation or that the commission was additional consideration flowing back to the importer, loading the commission amount was unsustainable and the declared assessable value was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the commission payable to the importer-assessee and the relationship alleged with the supplier justified loading of the declared import value under the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.

Analysis: The declared transaction value was supported by contemporaneous import invoices and comparable supplies, and the revenue did not dislodge the factual findings that no sufficient material had been produced to show that the declared price was not genuine. The existence of an agency arrangement by itself did not establish mutuality of interest or prove that the supplier and importer were related in a manner affecting price. In the absence of proof that the relationship influenced the price or that the commission was an additional consideration flowing back to the importer, the declared value could not be rejected or enhanced by loading the commission amount.

Conclusion: The loading of value was unsustainable and the declared assessable value was upheld in favour of the assessee.

---