Declared transaction value cannot be enhanced without proof of incorrect valuation or related-party influence in import pricing.

Declared transaction value of imported metal accessories for imitation jewellery could not be rejected merely by reference to the London Metal Exchange price of prime brass and assumed manufacturing charges. The department did not disprove the importer's explanation that the goods were made from brass waste, nor did it establish that the declared value was incorrect or that the buyer and supplier were related. Since the burden to show that the declared value was unacceptable remained on the department and was not discharged, enhancement of value was not justified and the declared value was accepted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared value of imported goods could be rejected and enhanced on the basis of the price of prime brass metal and manufacturing charges.

Analysis: The goods were declared as metal accessories for imitation jewellery and the importer maintained that they were made of brass waste. The department relied on the London Metal Exchange price of brass prime metal and assumed that the value of the manufactured article could not be below the raw material cost. The contrary view was that the department had not shown that the declared transaction value was incorrect or that the importer and supplier were related. The explanation that the goods were meant for imitation jewellery and therefore did not require prime-quality metal was not disproved. The burden to establish that the declared value was unacceptable remained on the department and was not discharged.

Conclusion: The enhancement of value was not justified and the declared value was accepted. The appeal failed.

---