Transaction value rejection under customs valuation rules upheld where evidence showed a front entity and no proof supported declared value.

Declared transaction value may be rejected where the importer fails to substantiate it with cogent evidence and surrounding facts indicate a front-entity or benami routing of the import. On the record, the real importer was identified during investigation, the appellant-firm did not cooperate with summons, and no documentary proof supported the declared value as the true transaction value. In those circumstances, the customs authorities were justified in determining assessable value under Rule 7 read with Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The rejection of the declared value and the revised valuation were therefore upheld, and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared value of the imported goods could be rejected and the assessable value determined under the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 on the footing that the import was benami and the appellant failed to substantiate the transaction value.

Analysis: The appellant did not produce cogent evidence to support the declared value as the true transaction value. The material on record showed that the real importer was identified during investigation, the appellant-firm did not cooperate with summons, and the circumstances supported the Customs view that the import was routed through a front entity. In the absence of documentary proof from the appellant, the authorities were justified in determining value under Rule 7 read with Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.

Conclusion: The rejection of the declared value and the determination of assessable value were upheld, and the appeal failed.

---