Customs valuation requires proof of both relationship and price influence before rejecting declared import value.

Import valuation under the Customs valuation rules cannot be rejected merely because buyer and seller are alleged to be related; the department must first establish a statutory relationship and then prove that the relationship influenced the price. On the facts described, the record did not show the recognised categories of related persons, such as mutual officers or directors, partnership, or control by a third person. Even assuming some relationship existed, there was no evidence of flow-back, price influence, or any other ground to discard the declared transaction value. The declared value was therefore accepted and the proposed duty, interest and penalty consequences could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared transaction value of imported urea and ammonia could be rejected on the ground that the buyer and seller were related persons and that the relationship influenced the price, thereby justifying re-determination of value, demand of differential duty, interest and penalties.

Analysis: The imports arose out of long-term off-take and pricing arrangements connected with the joint venture project. The relevant valuation provisions require proof that the parties fall within the specified categories of related persons and, even where a relationship exists, the declared value can be disturbed only if the circumstances of sale show that the relationship influenced the price. The evidence did not establish that the appellants, the Government of India and OMIFCO satisfied the statutory tests of relationship under the valuation rules. In particular, the record did not show officers/directors of one another, legally recognized partnership, or control by a third person. Even on the assumption of relationship, there was no material showing flow-back, price influence, or any other basis to discard the declared price. The long-term pricing mechanism, the contractual structure and the absence of proof of price influence supported acceptance of the declared value.

Conclusion: The declared transaction value was not liable to be rejected, and the demands, interest, confiscation-related consequences and penalties could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A declared import value cannot be rejected merely because the parties are said to be related; the department must prove both the statutory relationship and actual influence of that relationship on the price.

---