Customs valuation requires adjustment for credit interest, bulk discounts, and freight concessions supported by contemporaneous evidence.

Customs valuation of imported goods required adjustment of comparable prices for separately identifiable credit interest, bulk quantity discount, and freight concessions. The text states that the declared invoice price was not inclusive of 180-day credit interest, so that element had to be excluded for comparison. It further treats quantity discount on bulk imports as a normal trade practice and indicates a 2.5% discount on the bulk purchase. On freight, it accepts deduction of the difference for chartered vessel freight even where freight was not separately shown in the invoice, based on supporting market evidence. The declared value was therefore accepted after these adjustments.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the declared price of the imported goods was inclusive of interest for 180 days credit; (ii) whether quantity discount was admissible on bulk import and, if so, to what extent; and (iii) whether freight deduction was allowable for chartered vessel freight where freight was not shown separately.

Issue (i): Whether the declared price of the imported goods was inclusive of interest for 180 days credit.

Analysis: The record contained a separate invoice showing that interest at 20% per annum was chargeable for 180 days credit. This showed that the declared invoice price was not inclusive of interest. For comparison with another import price that included credit cost, the interest element had to be excluded.

Conclusion: The declared price was not inclusive of interest for 180 days credit, and the interest element had to be adjusted for valuation comparison.

Issue (ii): Whether quantity discount was admissible on bulk import and, if so, to what extent.

Analysis: Quantity discount on bulk purchases was accepted as a normal trade practice. The dispute was only about the quantum. In view of the bulk quantity imported and the contemporaneous invoices showing a lower price from the same supplier during the material period, the appellants were entitled to a substantial quantity discount.

Conclusion: Quantity discount was admissible, and the appellants were entitled to 2.5% discount on the bulk import.

Issue (iii): Whether freight deduction was allowable for chartered vessel freight where freight was not shown separately.

Analysis: The information obtained from the State Trading Corporation and the supporting letter from the marine agency showed that freight for cargo of 5,000 MT or more by chartered vessel was lower than normal liner freight. The evidence supported a deduction of the freight difference even though freight was not separately indicated in the invoice.

Conclusion: Freight deduction was allowable, and the appropriate deduction was DM 31 per PMT.

Final Conclusion: The enhanced assessable value was not sustainable, and the declared value had to be accepted after making the appropriate adjustments for interest, quantity discount, and freight.

Ratio Decidendi: For customs valuation, contemporaneous trade practice and supporting evidence must be given effect by adjusting comparable prices for separately identifiable interest, bulk quantity discount, and freight concessions actually available in the market.

---