Customs valuation based on comparable imports justified rejection of invoice value and inclusion of freight, insurance, and landing charges.

Where comparable imports by the same importer were available at a substantially higher value and no evidence explained the price difference, the invoice value was not accepted for customs assessment; valuation on a comparable-goods basis under the Customs Valuation Rules was treated as appropriate. Once that base value was adopted, freight and insurance could be added to reach assessable value, and inclusion of 1% landing charges was also upheld as part of import valuation. The customs valuation adopted by the authorities was sustained on all material points.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the invoice value could be accepted for assessment and whether the valuation method adopted was lawful; (ii) whether freight and insurance could be added to the assessable value; (iii) whether addition of 1% landing charges was legally maintainable.

Issue (i): whether the invoice value could be accepted for assessment and whether the valuation method adopted was lawful.

Analysis: The goods covered by the invoice were compared with similar imports by the same importer at a substantially higher value within a short span of time. No evidence supported the explanation for the price difference. The authorities had available comparable goods, and the proper approach ought to have been valuation on the basis of comparable imports under the Customs Valuation Rules rather than acceptance of the invoiced price. The lower authorities' valuation exercise was not ideal, but the record did not justify acceptance of the lower invoice value.

Conclusion: The invoice value was not accepted, and the valuation adopted by the authorities was upheld.

Issue (ii): whether freight and insurance could be added to the assessable value.

Analysis: Since the invoice price was not taken as the basis of valuation, the assessable value had to be worked out from the appropriate base value of the goods, and the additions for freight and insurance formed part of the adjustment required to reach assessable value. No legal infirmity in such addition was shown.

Conclusion: The addition of freight and insurance was held to be permissible.

Issue (iii): whether addition of 1% landing charges was legally maintainable.

Analysis: Landing expenditure was treated as an integral component of the value of the imported goods for the purpose of determining the price at the place of importation. On that basis, inclusion of landing charges in assessable value was justified.

Conclusion: The addition of 1% landing charges was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The valuation adopted by the customs authorities was sustained on all material points, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where comparable imported goods are available and the invoiced price is not credible, assessable value may be determined on a comparable-goods basis, with freight, insurance, and landing charges included as part of the import valuation where required by the valuation method adopted.

---