Customs valuation disputes may justify rejection of invoice value where comparable import data and unresolved commission issues support reassessment.

Customs valuation may depart from declared invoice value where the transaction value is disputed and comparable import data supports a higher assessable value. The valuation rules require acceptance of transaction value only when it can be properly determined; otherwise, sequential resort to identical goods, similar goods, deductive value and residual value is permitted. On the stated facts, the imported goods were not conclusively shown to be identical in all material respects, and the record did not exclude possible commission or brokerage. Accordingly, no writ interference under Article 226 was warranted, and the assessment based on customs valuation was upheld, with the importer left to pursue the appellate remedy and conditional release of goods against security.

---

---

Issues: Whether the customs authorities were justified in declining to accept the invoice value of the imported goods and in assessing the goods on the basis of comparable import data, and whether interference under Article 226 was warranted.

Analysis: The valuation scheme under the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 requires acceptance of transaction value where it can be determined, but permits sequential resort to the rules governing identical goods, similar goods, deductive value and residual value when the invoice price is disputed. On the facts, the customs authorities relied on import data showing higher values for comparable goods, while the petitioner's materials did not conclusively establish that the imported goods were identical in all material respects or that the declared price had to be accepted. The record also did not conclusively rule out additional amounts payable by way of commission or brokerage. In that state of facts, the court found no basis for writ interference with the assessment order.

Conclusion: Interference under Article 226 was not justified, and the assessment based on customs valuation was upheld; the petitioner was left to pursue the appellate remedy with only conditional release of the goods against security.

---