Real value of imported goods must be proved by statutory valuation criteria before cheating can be inferred.

The statutory requirement to declare the "real value" of imported goods turned on the wholesale cash price of like goods at the time and place of importation, with cost-based valuation available only if that price was not ascertainable. The prosecution had to prove the factual conditions justifying departure from the primary valuation method. Mere reliance on customs' alternative valuation or on invoices and an estimated price was insufficient. Because no reliable proof showed that the wholesale cash price of comparable goods could not be ascertained, and payment of a particular price did not by itself establish statutory real value, the charge of cheating failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved that the respondent caused a false declaration of the real value of imported goods so as to constitute cheating under the Sea Customs Act framework.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required the importer to state the real value in the bill of entry, with "real value" being assessed primarily under the rule corresponding to the wholesale cash price of like goods at the time and place of importation, and resort to cost-based valuation only where that price was not ascertainable. It was not enough to show that the customs authorities applied the alternative valuation provision or that the importer supplied invoices and an estimate of value. The prosecution had to prove the factual conditions that displaced the primary valuation method and justified the alternative one. No reliable proof was adduced that the wholesale cash price of like goods was not ascertainable, or that comparable goods could not have been imported at the lower price stated. The mere fact that a particular price was paid for the goods did not establish that price as the statutory real value.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove a false declaration of real value, and no offence of cheating was made out.

---