Customs valuation of re-processed goods cannot rest on prime material prices or routine loading without proper valuation analysis.

Declared value for imported re-processed ABS glass filled regrind could not be rejected by reference to Platt's price list for prime material, because the goods were expressly found not to be prime material and the two were not comparable. Contemporaneous import evidence was not established, and the enhancement was made by routine loading without proper compliance with the valuation rules. On that basis, the declared invoice value could not be displaced by the inapposite reference price, and the value enhancement was unsustainable. The importer's declared value was therefore accepted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared value of imported re-processed goods could be rejected by comparing them with the price of prime material in Platt's price list and by making an arbitrary loading without proper application of the valuation rules.

Analysis: The goods were found on test to be re-processed ABS glass filled regrind, and the order-in-original itself accepted that they were not prime material. On that footing, reliance on prime material prices from Platt's list was not a valid basis for enhancement because prime and re-processed goods are not comparable. The contemporaneous import evidence was not established, and the loading was made routinely without complying with the prescribed valuation procedure. In these circumstances, the declared invoice value could not be displaced by an based on an inapposite reference price.

Conclusion: The enhancement of value was unsustainable and the declared invoice value had to be accepted.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the valuation enhancement was set aside, resulting in acceptance of the importer's declared value.

---