Comparable import prices cannot justify higher assessable value when quantities, discounts, and commercial terms materially differ.

Comparable import prices could not be used to reject the declared price where the relied-upon consignments were smaller, involved different commercial terms, and included deferred payment not present in the subject import. The record showed that the supplier ordinarily granted quantity discounts for larger orders, so the department's quotations and comparison imports did not provide a reliable basis for enhancing assessable value. On that valuation issue, the enhancement was therefore not justified and the importer succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessable value of the imported chemical was correctly fixed at a higher price on the basis of comparable imports and quotations, and whether the quantity discount claimed by the importer required acceptance.

Analysis: The price relied upon by the department was based on smaller consignments imported by other parties from the same supplier, whereas the subject import was a substantially larger quantity. The material on record showed that the supplier ordinarily allowed quantity discount for larger orders, and the quotations invoked by the department also contained different commercial terms, including deferred payment, which were absent in the subject import. In these circumstances, the comparable imports at a higher price did not furnish a reliable basis for rejecting the declared price and enhancing the assessable value.

Conclusion: The enhancement of assessable value was not justified and the importer succeeded on the valuation issue.

Ratio Decidendi: Comparable import prices cannot be relied upon to enhance assessable value where the quantities, commercial terms, and availability of quantity discount materially differ.

---