Customs valuation requires reliable comparables before rejecting declared value or using the residual method.

Declared transaction value in customs valuation is ordinarily to be accepted unless the department produces objective and reliable evidence showing that it is not bona fide. A contemporaneous import can justify rejection only if the comparable goods and trade circumstances are materially similar, including quantity, origin, timing and trading conditions. Here, the relied-upon comparison was defective because the import quantity was not shown, the appellant's import was much larger, and the cited goods moved through Singapore despite Indonesian origin, affecting freight, quantity discount and margin comparisons. On that basis, rejection of the declared value and resort to the residual method were not sustainable, and consequential relief was indicated subject to unjust enrichment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared transaction value could be rejected on the basis of the relied-upon contemporaneous import, and whether valuation under the residual method was justified.

Analysis: The declared value is ordinarily to be accepted unless the department produces objective reasons and strong evidence to show that it is not bona fide. The burden to displace the invoice value lies on the department. The relied-upon contemporaneous import was defective for comparison because the quantity imported was not shown, the appellant's import was much larger, and the cited import had moved through Singapore though the country of origin was Indonesia. Those differences affected the relevance of any comparison, including possible quantity discount, freight elements, and trading margin. In these circumstances, the contemporaneous import did not provide a proper basis to reject the declared value and the resort to the residual valuation method was not justified.

Conclusion: The rejection of the declared transaction value and the valuation adopted on that basis were not sustainable, and the appeal succeeded in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The valuation order was set aside and the importer was entitled to consequential relief, subject to any issue of refund being governed by the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

Ratio Decidendi: In customs valuation, declared transaction value can be rejected only on the basis of objective and reliable evidence, and a contemporaneous import is not a valid comparable unless the goods, quantity, origin, timing, and trading circumstances are materially similar.

---