Transaction value in customs valuation cannot be rejected on invoice comparison alone without cogent evidence of undervaluation.

Declared transaction value for imported goods must be accepted unless the department establishes recognised exceptions under the valuation rules with cogent evidence. A post-clearance comparison with a higher-priced import, without proof of true contemporaneity and comparable commercial circumstances, was insufficient to reject the declared value. Differences in timing of import, quantity, and trading relationship further weakened the allegation of undervaluation. The declared value therefore could not be displaced on the basis of invoice comparison alone, and the differential duty demand was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared transaction value of the imported goods could be rejected and enhanced on the basis of a higher value reflected in another import of similar goods.

Analysis: The imported goods were released on the basis of the declared value, and the enhancement was founded on a post-clearance comparison with another import. The record did not show a finding that the appellant's declared price fell within the recognised exceptions to acceptance of transaction value. In valuation matters, the price actually paid or payable is to be accepted unless the case is brought within the exceptions under the valuation rules, and rejection of declared value requires cogent material. A mere comparison of invoices, without establishing true contemporaneity and comparable commercial circumstances, is insufficient to sustain undervaluation. The differences in time of import, quantity, and trading relationship also weakened the reliance placed on the higher-priced import.

Conclusion: The declared transaction value could not be rejected, and the demand for differential duty was unsustainable.

---