Declared customs value for imported electronics cannot be rejected without proper contemporaneous price comparison and Rule 5 compliance.

Declared transaction value for imported electronic components cannot be rejected without first addressing contemporaneous import documents showing comparable or lower prices accepted by Customs. A proforma invoice said to have been issued by a foreign supplier was treated as unreliable after the supplier disowned it, and evidence from another domestic importer was not properly used because cross-examination was denied. Valuation under Rule 7 was unnecessary where the importer's material supported determination under Rule 5, and the record did not show adoption of the lowest contemporaneous price as required by Rule 5(3). On that reasoning, rejection of declared value and consequential reassessment were unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared value of the imported electronic components could be rejected and the value reassessed on the basis of the materials relied upon by the Department.

Analysis: The valuation was set aside because the declared transaction value was rejected without proper consideration of the importer's contemporaneous import documents showing comparable or lower prices accepted by Customs. The reliance placed on a proforma invoice said to have been issued by a foreign supplier was found unsustainable, especially when the supplier disowned it. The evidence from another domestic importer was also not relied upon after the requested cross-examination was denied. The determination under Rule 7 was found unnecessary where the data placed by the importer enabled valuation under Rule 5 itself, and the order did not show that the lowest contemporaneous price had been adopted as required by Rule 5(3).

Conclusion: The rejection of the declared value and the consequential reassessment could not be sustained, and the appeal succeeded for the appellant.

---