Customs valuation requires cogent rejection of transaction value and sequential use of valuation rules before resorting to residual method.

Declared transaction value in customs valuation cannot be rejected on the basis of the letter of credit, insurance values, or an unsubstantiated allegation of undervaluation unless the department gives cogent reasons for displacing the importer's contemporaneous evidence. The text also states that comparable imports and price negotiations must be properly considered, and that insurance values are not a reliable proxy for assessable value because they may include non-duty components. It further emphasises that the residual valuation method cannot be used before the sequential rules for identical and similar goods have been exhausted. On that basis, the enhancement of value was held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared value of the imported goods could be rejected and enhanced on the basis of the letter of credit, insurance values, and other material, and whether recourse to the residual valuation method was permissible without first exhausting the sequential valuation rules.

Analysis: The dispute concerned valuation of imported goods under the transaction value scheme. The department relied on the price reflected in the letter of credit, insurance values, and an alleged admission of undervaluation, but the importers produced contemporary correspondence showing price negotiations and evidence of comparable imports. The adjudication order did not explain why this evidence was rejected or establish that the letter-of-credit amount was actually paid as the price for the goods. The use of insurance values was also found to be an unsound basis for valuation, since such values may include components beyond assessable value. The order further appeared to invoke the residual method without first exhausting valuation under the earlier rules for identical and similar goods.

Conclusion: The enhancement of value was held unsustainable and the impugned order was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, and the appellant became entitled to consequential refund of the deposits made during investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: Declared transaction value cannot be rejected on conjectural or inconsistent material unless the department first displaces the importer's evidence with cogent reasons and applies the customs valuation rules in their mandated sequential order before resorting to the residual method.

---