Customs valuation requires acceptance of declared transaction value unless Revenue proves grounds to reject it.

Under the Customs Valuation Rules, the declared transaction value must be accepted as the price actually paid or payable unless the Revenue proves valid grounds to reject it. Rule 8 may be used only when value cannot be determined by the sequential valuation scheme under the earlier rules. Where no reliable evidence shows that the declared price is false, related-party influence, or other grounds to displace it, enhancement by reference to comparable market prices is not justified. On that basis, confiscation and penalty resting on the enhanced value are also unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the declared CIF value of the imported goods could be rejected and the assessable value enhanced under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, and whether the confiscation and penalty sustained on that basis were liable to be set aside.

Analysis: The valuation scheme under Rule 4 treats the price actually paid or payable as the transaction value, subject to the prescribed conditions. A resort to Rule 8 is permissible only when the value cannot be determined by reasonable means under the sequential scheme. On the facts, the Revenue did not establish that the declared price was not the true transaction value or that any relationship between the parties had influenced the price. In the absence of reliable evidence to displace the declared value, enhancement by reference to market prices of comparable goods was not justified. Once the transaction value was acceptable under the earlier rule, there was no basis to proceed to Rule 8. The consequential confiscation and penalty could not stand.

Conclusion: The declared transaction value was to be accepted, the enhancement under Rule 8 was not sustainable, and the confiscation and penalty were not justified. The appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Customs Valuation Rules, the declared transaction value must be accepted unless the revenue establishes valid grounds to reject it under the sequential valuation framework; Rule 8 cannot be invoked where value is determinable under Rule 4.

---