Full Judgment
2. It was argued by the ld. Advocate that the Commissioner (Appeals) order is non-speaking; the manufacturer's invoice produced by them should have been accepted; comparison of different types of goods for the purpose of determining the value is incorrect; the lower authority ignored the fact that the price in their case is negotiated; the transaction value under Rule 4 of Customs Valuation Rules has been rejected on the sole ground that contemporaneous prices of the same goods were found to be higher; that such a rejection is not permissible in view of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Basant Industries 1996 (81) ELT 195 (SC); Eicher Tracton's case etc.; the transaction value has not been rejected under Rule 10A of the valuation Rules; The ld. DR strongly supported the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).
4. The appellants placed an order for the impugned goods from trader in UAE who in turn placed an order with the manufactures' in Germany. The manufacturer has shipped the goods directly from Germany. The invoice filed along with the Bills of Entry showed a value of US 140/CBM. The manufacturers' invoice to the trader in UAE is for US 88/CBM only. The manufacturer says that he supplied 'B' grade material on the request of the said trader in the AE. Goods on examination, however were found to be of prime quality. Thus whether the goods are of 'B' grade or not the manufactures' invoices shows that the price paid for the goods is only US 88 CBM. The importer however declared the value as US 140 CBM. The Department rejected this value on the basis of contemporary invoices for the same goods. In all 6 imports in 2001 showed that the price varied between 180 US to 205 US per CBM. The lower authority adopted the lowest of the prices indicated in the contemporary invoices and determined the value at 180 CBM.5. We observe that the Department have rejected the declared value on the basis of contemporary imports. It has not rejected the TV on the ground that the circumstances for rejection of TV laid down in Rule 4 of valuation Rules exist in this case. The Supreme Court in the case of Basant Industries cited supra held that mere comparison of invoices received by the importer with the invoices of imports of same goods by other importers is not conclusive for determining that the goods under valued. In the present case what appears to have been done is only this. Following the ratio of this judgment we allow the appeal.