Customs valuation cannot be reopened on a later private settlement and revised invoice without contemporaneous proof of undervaluation.

A subsequent private settlement and revised invoice did not justify reopening the original customs valuation, because the initial assessment was undisputed and the later testing was not shown to have been conducted in the presence of customs authorities. The revised agreement itself stated that it was entered into to avoid litigation and without any admission of liability by the supplier, so it did not amount to accepted evidence of diminution in value for customs purposes. The claim for refund or reassessment on that basis was rejected, and the Tribunal's order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the importer was entitled to claim refund or reassessment on the basis of a subsequent revised agreement and revised invoice alleging diminution in value of the imported goods.

Analysis: The valuation at the time of original assessment was not disputed. The later testing of the goods was not shown to have been done in the presence of the customs authorities, and the revised invoice flowed from a subsequent settlement between the parties. The revised agreement expressly recorded that it was arrived at to avoid litigation and without any admission of liability by the supplier, so it did not establish an accepted reduction in value for customs purposes.

Conclusion: The claim based on diminution in value was not accepted, and the appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The order of the Tribunal rejecting the appeal was upheld, and the importer obtained no relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent private settlement and revised invoice, absent accepted liability or contemporaneous proof of undervaluation, are insufficient to disturb the original customs valuation or sustain a refund claim.

---