Customs valuation disputes require proof of undervaluation; unsupported Platt prices and non-identical imports cannot override declared value.

Valuation of imported mixed floor-sweeping material under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 requires acceptance of the declared transaction value unless the department first proves that the invoice price is not the real price paid or payable. Because the department did not establish the exact composition or predominance of any polymer in the consignment, the standing order based on predominant polymer could not be applied. The contemporaneous imports were also not shown to be identical in nature, quantity, quality or commercial level, so Platt quotations and comparable imports could not displace the declared value. The enhancement of assessable value was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the enhanced assessable value of imported mixed floor-sweeping material could be sustained on the basis of Platt prices, standing order guidelines and contemporaneous imports, when the department had not established the exact composition or predominance of the polymer content in the consignment.

Analysis: The valuation of imported goods under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 proceeds on acceptance of the declared transaction value unless the department first shows that the invoice price is not the real price paid or payable. The standing order relied upon for floor sweepings required assessment by reference to the predominant polymer and contemplated examination of the goods to ascertain composition, but no reliable material was brought on record to establish the predominance of any particular polymer in the imported consignment. The relied upon contemporaneous imports were also not shown to be identical in nature, quantity, quality or commercial level. In such circumstances, Platt quotations and comparable imports could not displace the declared value, and the burden of proving undervaluation remained un-discharged by the department.

Conclusion: The enhancement of assessable value was unsustainable and the declared transaction value had to be accepted.

---