Customs valuation documents rejected where invoices were unreliable; re-determination of assessable value upheld under valuation rules.

Declared transaction value was rejected where the importer's invoices and contract papers were found unreliable because of inconsistencies in letterheads, addresses, signatures and invoice formats, and the manufacturer denied issuing the disputed documents. Hong Kong records also showed intermediary invoices and air waybills preceding the manufacturer's invoices and not matching the declared description or quantity. The Tribunal held that one bill of entry could not serve as contemporaneous evidence for other imports when the underlying documents were suspect. Partial bank records were insufficient to rebut the adverse inference from incomplete remittance evidence and advance-payment endorsements. Re-determination of assessable value on the recovered documents, with adjustments under the Customs Valuation Rules, was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared transaction value of the imported watch modules was liable to be rejected on the basis of suspicious and non-genuine documents, and whether the assessable value could validly be re-determined by resort to the Customs Valuation Rules.

Analysis: The invoices and contract documents produced by the importer were found unreliable because of inconsistencies in the documents, discrepancies in letterheads, addresses, signatures and invoice formats, and because the manufacturer confirmed that the disputed letters and invoices were not issued by it. The documents obtained from Hong Kong also showed that the intermediary invoices and air waybills preceded the manufacturer's invoices and did not tally with the importer's declared description and quantity. In these circumstances, the Tribunal held that the final assessment of one bill of entry could not be treated as contemporaneous evidence for the remaining imports, since the very documents relied upon by the importer were suspect. The Tribunal further held that the partial bank documents produced did not displace the adverse inference drawn from the non-production of complete remittance records and the advance-payment endorsements appearing in the Hong Kong documents. Once the declared invoices were rejected, the re-determination of value on the basis of the recovered documents, with suitable adjustments under the valuation rules, was upheld.

Conclusion: The rejection of the declared value and the reassessment of the goods were upheld, and the importer's challenge to the valuation was rejected.

---