Transaction value for used machinery must be accepted absent proof of doubt; missing manufacturer invoice alone is insufficient.

Declared transaction value of imported second-hand autoconers could not be rejected merely because the manufacturer's invoices were not produced. The valuation rules required acceptance of transaction value unless its genuineness was shown to be doubtful, and a bare remark that the price appeared low was insufficient without expert examination or other supporting evidence. Although the invoice could be called for under the valuation rules, its absence in the case of second-hand machinery did not by itself make the declared value inadmissible. The transaction value therefore had to be accepted, and depreciation-based valuation could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared transaction value of the imported second-hand autoconers could be rejected and the goods valued by depreciating from the original value merely because the manufacturer's invoices were not produced.

Analysis: The valuation dispute turned on whether there was any material showing that the declared price was not genuine. The examining officer's remark that the value appeared low, without expert examination or other evidence, was insufficient to dislodge the transaction value. Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules governed acceptance of transaction value unless its genuineness was shown to be doubtful. Although Rule 10(1)(b) required production of the manufacturer's invoice when called for, the absence of such invoice in the case of second-hand machinery was not by itself a legal basis to reject the declared value, since there was no provision making the transaction value inadmissible on that ground alone.

Conclusion: The declared transaction value had to be accepted and the depreciated valuation method could not be sustained.

---