Rejection of the declared transaction value for imported brass...

Rejection of the declared transaction value for imported brass scrap required specific evidence of contemporaneous imports of identical goods under Rule 5. The Tribunal found that the authorities had not explained the revised classification of secondary defective brass pipes or supplied the requisite valuation particulars; visual examination alone could not displace the declared description, particularly where no tariff size restriction applied to brass scrap. The enhanced value and differential duty demand were therefore unsustainable. Misdeclaration was also not established because the contractual specification, broad tariff coverage, and chartered engineer's report conflicted with the departmental visual assessment, while no documentary evidence proved serviceability or misdeclaration. Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were consequently set aside.