Customs valuation: declared invoice value cannot be rejected without proof that any relationship influenced the price.

The customs valuation dispute concerned whether the declared invoice value of sunglasses could be rejected on the basis of an alleged relationship between the importer and foreign entities. The Customs Valuation Rules required proof of a legally relevant relationship and evidence that it influenced price; a mere commercial link was insufficient. On the facts, the goods were supplied through an unrelated Hong Kong intermediary, and the material did not show any relationship with the importer or any extra consideration beyond the invoice price. The departmental statement did not establish underinvoicing, and the invoices were not proved fabricated with sufficient certainty. The declared value was therefore not liable to rejection, and enhancement of assessable value was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared import value of the sunglasses could be rejected and the value enhanced on the basis of alleged relationship between the importer and foreign entities, and whether the invoice value had to be accepted in the absence of proof that the relationship influenced price.

Analysis: The valuation dispute turned on the Customs Valuation Rules. A mere commercial connection or corporate link was not enough to discard the invoice price unless a legally relevant relationship between buyer and seller was established and shown to have influenced the price. On the facts, the goods were supplied by an unrelated Hong Kong intermediary sourced from a Chinese manufacturer, and the material did not show that the manufacturer or intermediary was related to the importer or that any extra consideration had passed beyond the invoice price. The statement relied on by the department did not prove underinvoicing; at most it suggested a low introductory price strategy. The invoices produced by the importer were not shown to be fabricated with sufficient certainty to justify rejection of the declared value.

Conclusion: The declared value was not liable to be rejected and the enhancement of assessable value was unsustainable; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

---