Related-party customs valuation requires cogent evidence; LME prices alone cannot displace declared transaction value.

Related-party customs valuation requires acceptance of the declared transaction value unless the Department produces cogent evidence that the price is unacceptable. The article states that invoice prices could not be rejected without contemporaneous higher comparable imports or other material showing undervaluation, and that a prior SVB acceptance supported the declared value. It also explains that LME prices are only market indicators and cannot, by themselves, displace transaction value in the absence of evidence of flow back, royalty, technical fees, or any other factor showing that the relationship influenced price. The remand was therefore unsustainable and the declared assessable value stood accepted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the invoice prices of the foreign supplier could be rejected in the absence of higher contemporaneous import prices; and (ii) whether LME prices alone could be relied upon to determine the value of related-party imports in the absence of any evidence of flow back or other influencing factors.

Issue (i): Whether the invoice prices of the foreign supplier could be rejected in the absence of higher contemporaneous import prices.

Analysis: The valuation under the Customs Valuation Rules requires acceptance of the transaction value unless the Department brings cogent evidence showing that the declared price is unacceptable. The record showed that the SVB had twice examined the documents, invoices and pricing pattern and had accepted the declared value. No contemporaneous imports at higher prices, or other material showing undervaluation, were brought on record. Mere suspicion or a remand without specific reasons was insufficient to displace the invoice value.

Conclusion: The invoice prices could not be rejected in the absence of contemporaneous evidence of higher comparable imports, and the declared value was liable to be accepted.

Issue (ii): Whether LME prices alone could be relied upon to determine the value of related-party imports in the absence of any evidence of flow back or other influencing factors.

Analysis: LME prices were held to be only spot market indicators and not conclusive evidence of customs value. In related-party transactions, the decisive question is whether the relationship influenced the price. The materials on record showed that the foreign supplier sourced goods from LME-linked traders, added service and other charges, and invoiced at a price above the underlying purchase price. There was no evidence of royalty, technical know-how fee, flow back, or any circumstance showing influence on price.

Conclusion: LME prices alone could not justify rejection of the declared value, and there was no basis to disturb the transaction value on the ground of related-party influence.

Final Conclusion: The remand order was unsustainable, the declared assessable value was accepted, and the original order accepting transaction value was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: In related-party customs valuation, transaction value cannot be rejected merely on reference to LME prices or conjecture; the Department must produce cogent evidence, ordinarily including comparable contemporaneous imports or other material showing that the relationship influenced the price.

---