Customs valuation cannot reject declared import value without reliable evidence; market prices alone are insufficient.

Declared import value could not be rejected merely because it was below London Metal Exchange prices, since enhancement under the Customs Valuation Rules required reliable evidence. Exchange prices may indicate market trends, but they do not by themselves displace transaction value. The seller's location in Singapore and shipment from Japan was not a sufficient basis to discard the declared value, and reliance on a different commodity's price was also insufficient. As no reliable contemporaneous import evidence supported the higher value, the declared value could not be enhanced and the departmental appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared value of the imported goods could be rejected and enhanced on the basis of the London Metal Exchange price under the Customs Valuation Rules.

Analysis: The declared price was considered suspect because it was substantially below the price cited from the London Metal Exchange, and the Tribunal accepted that such exchange prices generally reflect international market trends. However, rejection of the transaction value required a valid evidentiary basis. The fact that the seller was located in Singapore while the goods were shipped from Japan was not, by itself, a ground to discard the declared value. The department also relied on the price of a different commodity, and no reliable material was produced to establish contemporaneous imports at the higher value sought to be applied.

Conclusion: The declared value could not be enhanced on the material available, and the departmental appeal failed.

---