Customs transaction value and country of origin mis declaration: price disparity alone cannot displace declared import value; penalties unsustainable.

Transaction value under customs law must meet statutory conditions including delivery terms, unrelated buyer-seller and sole consideration; a prior higher export price alone does not justify rejecting declared transaction value if those conditions are met, so the declared value cannot be displaced on that basis. Sequential application of Valuation Rules 5-8 is permissible only when transaction value is indeterminable; comparable-price valuation requires goods sold in the same condition as imported and cannot be based on domestic selling price of locally produced goods, so values computed under Rule 7(1) or Rule 8(2)(i) were unsustainable on the facts. Mis declaration of country of origin is treated as a technical offence absent culpable conduct and penalties or confiscation against officers require proof of personal contravention; such penalties were held not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the transaction value declared for imported goods could be rejected and assessable value determined by resort to the Valuation Rules (including Rules 5-8 and Rule 7(1)/Rule 8(2)(i)) on the basis of higher earlier exports of allegedly identical goods; and whether penalties and confiscation imposed for mis-declaration of country of origin were sustainable.

Analysis: The transaction value must satisfy the conditions of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, including that the price be for delivery at the time and place of importation and that buyer and seller be unrelated with price as sole consideration. A mere disparity between a previously exported price (eight to fourteen months earlier) and the declared invoice price at the time of import does not, by itself, permit rejection of transaction value if Section 14 conditions are met. Under the Customs Valuation Rules, Rule 3(ii) requires sequential application of Rules 5 to 8 only when transaction value cannot be determined; Rules 5 and 6 were inapplicable on the facts; Rule 7(1) requires that comparable goods be sold in India in the same condition as imported, which was not the case; and Rule 8(2)(i) precludes determining value on the basis of selling price in India of goods produced in India. On penalties, established authority treats mis-declaration of country of origin as a technical offence not ordinarily warranting penalty absent culpable conduct; additionally, imposition of penalty on an officer requires proof of personal contravention.

Conclusion: The transaction value declared cannot be rejected solely on the basis of price disparity with earlier exports; the assessable value set by applying Rule 7(1) or Rule 8(2)(i) was unsustainable on the facts; and the penalties and confiscation imposed for mis-declaration of country of origin are not sustainable. The appeals are allowed and the impugned order is set aside; consequential benefits, if any, are to be granted to the appellants.

---