Customs valuation requires like-for-like comparison before rejecting declared value; differing quantity and packing defeated enhancement.

Declared transaction value cannot be rejected in customs valuation unless a contemporaneous import comparison is made on like terms, including quality, quantity, time of import and commercial level. Here, although the goods were similar in description, the Revenue's comparison was distorted by materially different quantities and by bulk packing at Bangalore versus retail packing at Mumbai. Because those relevant differences were not properly accounted for, the assessable value could not be enhanced on that basis. The rejection of the declared value and the resulting enhancement were held unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared transaction value of the imported goods could be rejected and the assessable value enhanced on the basis of comparison with another import, despite differences in quantity and packing.

Analysis: The imported goods were identical in description, but the comparison relied upon by the Revenue was not on like terms. The quantities imported at the two ports were materially different, and the goods at Bangalore were received in bulk packing whereas the earlier Mumbai imports were in retail packing. In valuation matters, contemporaneous imports can justify rejection of declared value only when the comparison is made on relevant parameters such as quality, quantity, time of import and commercial level. On the facts, the enhancement was made without properly accounting for these differences, and the declared value could not be discarded merely because the goods were similar in description.

Conclusion: The rejection of the transaction value and the enhancement of assessable value were not sustainable. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

---