Transaction value of imported zinc cannot be rejected on non-comparable LME prices without corroborative evidence.

Declared transaction value for imported zinc plates could not be rejected merely by reference to London Metal Exchange quotations, because the imported goods had materially lower purity and were therefore not comparable with the benchmark zinc price. The test report showed purity of about 87.2% to 88.3%, while the quoted LME price related to 99.9% purity zinc. In the absence of contemporaneous imports or other corroborative evidence, the Revenue had no basis to discard the declared value or enhance assessable value. The Tribunal set aside the valuation rejection and accepted the assessee's declared transaction value.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared transaction value of the imported zinc consignment could be rejected and the assessable value enhanced on the basis of London Metal Exchange prices despite the imported goods having materially lower purity than the quoted benchmark.

Analysis: The imported goods were zinc plates of irregular shapes and sizes from Bangladesh, with metal content stated to be below 90%. The test report showed purity between 87.2% and 88.3%. The valuation was rejected by the lower authorities and the value was sought to be enhanced with reference to LME prices. The Tribunal held that LME prices for zinc of 99.9% purity were not comparable with the impugned goods. In the absence of contemporaneous imports or other corroborative evidence, the declared transaction value could not be discarded merely because the quoted market price was higher.

Conclusion: The rejection of the transaction value was unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on the basis of benchmark market quotations unless the goods are comparable and the Revenue produces corroborative evidence such as contemporaneous imports or other reliable material.

---