Related-party import valuation: declared transaction value accepted where no evidence showed price influence or comparable goods data existed.

In related-party imports, transaction value may be accepted under the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 where the circumstances of sale show that the relationship did not influence price, and an enquiry is required only if there is doubt about acceptability. Here, the importer supported the declared values with SVB material, commercial agreements, import and remittance records, audited accounts, and the foreign supplier's pricing declaration, while the Revenue produced no contrary evidence of price manipulation or higher comparable values. Rule 3(3)(b) was also inapplicable because the goods were custom-made and no comparable identical or similar goods data was available. The declared value was therefore accepted and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared invoice value of imported goods could be accepted in a related-party transaction under the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, and whether Rule 3(3)(b) was attracted on the facts.

Analysis: Rule 3(3)(a) permits acceptance of transaction value in related-party imports if the circumstances of sale show that the relationship did not influence price, and an enquiry is required only where there is doubt about acceptability. The importer had furnished the SVB questionnaire reply, distribution agreement, import details, selling-price break-up, remittance details, audited balance sheets, and the foreign supplier's declaration on pricing policy. The original authority examined these materials and accepted the declared values, while the Revenue brought no contrary evidence to show manipulation of price, payment over and above invoice value, or availability of identical or similar goods at higher prices. Rule 3(3)(b) applies where the importer demonstrates fairness by reference to transaction, deductive, or computed values of identical or similar goods, but the record showed that the goods were custom-made and no such comparative data was available. In those circumstances, Rule 3(3)(b) did not assist the Revenue.

Conclusion: The declared transaction value was rightly accepted and no interference with the original order was called for; the Revenue's appeal failed.

---