Declared transaction value cannot be rejected without reliable contemporaneous comparables under customs valuation rules.

Declared transaction value for imported float glass sheets could not be rejected on the basis of general comparison with alleged contemporaneous imports. The manufacturer's invoice value remained the proper starting point because the Department did not show strong and cogent reasons to discard it, and its relied-upon imports were not proved to be at the same commercial level, in substantially the same quantity, or sufficiently contemporaneous. Material inconsistencies in thickness, quantity, and currency conversion also undermined the comparables, and the requirements for identical goods under Rule 5 were not established. On that evidentiary record, invocation of Rule 10A(1) to rework assessable value was not justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared transaction value of the imported float glass sheets could be rejected and re-determined on the basis of the Department's alleged contemporaneous imports under the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.

Analysis: The declared invoice value was from the manufacturer and, absent strong and cogent reasons, could not be discarded merely by general comparison. The Department's relied-upon imports were either too remote in time or not shown to be at the same commercial level or in substantially the same quantity. The comparison also suffered from material inconsistencies in product thickness, quantity, and currency conversion, and there was no adequate demonstration that the adopted comparables satisfied the requirements of Rule 5 for identical goods. In these circumstances, the evidentiary basis for invoking Rule 10A(1) and for reworking the assessable value was not established.

Conclusion: The rejection of the declared transaction value was not sustainable and the value re-determined on the Department's comparisons could not be upheld.

---