Transaction value cannot be rejected on unauthenticated foreign export copies when contemporaneous import evidence supports the declared price.

Transaction value cannot be rejected merely on unauthenticated photocopies of foreign export declarations. The document notes that xerox copies without customs seal or official signature are unreliable for displacing the invoice price, especially where surrounding circumstances indicate the export declaration may be inflated for incentive purposes. Contemporaneous imports of identical goods at comparable prices further support the declared value, and the Revenue must rebut that value with tangible evidence. Valuation provisions must also be applied in the proper sequence; bypassing the normal valuation chain and adopting an enhanced value on inadequate material is unsustainable. On that basis, rejection of transaction value, enhancement of assessable value, demand, and penalty could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessable value of the imported goods could be enhanced and the transaction value rejected on the basis of photocopies of Hong Kong export declarations, and whether the adjudicating authority was justified in bypassing the normal valuation sequence and adopting an enhanced value.

Analysis: The only foundation for rejection of the declared value was the export declaration obtained through Hong Kong Customs. The copies relied upon were xerox copies, without Customs seal or signature of the officials concerned, and therefore did not constitute reliable authenticated evidence for displacing the invoice price. The surrounding circumstances also showed that the foreign supplier's declaration could have reflected an inflated export value for incentive purposes, which weakened the probative value of the documents. In addition, the importers produced evidence of contemporaneous imports of identical goods at comparable prices, and the Revenue did not rebut the declared transaction value by any tangible evidence. The authority was also found to have adopted the enhanced value inconsistently while accepting the possibility that the export declaration price might itself be inflated, and the valuation provisions were not properly applied in sequence.

Conclusion: The rejection of the transaction value and the enhancement of assessable value were unsustainable. The declared value was required to be accepted, and the demand and penalty could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A transaction value cannot be discarded on the basis of unauthenticated photocopies of foreign export declarations, especially where the declared value is supported by contemporaneous import evidence and the Revenue adduces no independent rebuttal.

---