ORDER
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the valuation of goggles imported by the appellants from China. The appellants, claiming the goods to be stock goods, have declared the value as US $ 0.20 C & F Calcutta per piece. The assessable value of the same was enhanced to Rs. 34.80 per piece on the basis of import of the similar goods through Calcutta Custom House, after allowing the quantity discount of 25%.
2. The appellants duly represented by Shri D.K. Saha, ld. Consultant, submit that the enhancement of value based upon the import of goggles under Bill of Entry dated 19-8-2000 was not justified inasmuch as the said Bill of Entry cannot be held to be reflecting upon the import of contemporaneous goods. He submits that the appellants, in the usual course of his business, entered into a contract with the manufacturers directly for purchase of consignment of 41000 pcs. of stock goods goggles. He submits that apart from the fact that the appellants’ goods are stock lot whereas the alleged contemporaneous import is of different goods, he submits that the relied upon Bill of Entry was only for 1020 pcs. whereas the appellants’ goods are around 41000 pcs. Further, the appellants have purchased directly from the manufacturer whereas the alleged contemporaneous import is purchased from the dealer of Hongkong. He also submits that the relied upon documents show that the goods were assorted sun glass whereas in their cases it is the stock goods. As such, the relied upon import cannot be held to be contemporaneous import merely because the country of origin in both the cases is China.
3. Shri D.K. Saha, ld. Consultant, relied upon the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Hindustan Pencils Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Mumbai) reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 307 (Tribunal) which is to the effect that the stock lot prices are at a reduced one due to very nature of distressed sale. Reliance has also been placed upon the another decision reported in 2001 (129) E.L.T. 650 (T) = 2001 (45) RLT 360 (CEGAT-Mum.) which held that in the absence of contemporaneous imports, invoice price is not to be rejected. Referring to another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sai Impex v. Collector of Customs reported in 1992 (62) E.L.T. 616 (Tribunal), Shri Saha submits that the manufacturer’s invoice, if available and genuine, is the best evidence of the price of imported goods and in that case there is no need to go to other contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods. He also submits that they have placed on record the contemporaneous imports before the adjudicating authority showing more or less the same price accepted by the Revenue.
4. We have heard Shri T.K. Kar, ld. SDR who reiterates the findings of the authorities below.
5. After carefully considering the submissions made from both the sides, we agree with the ld. Consultant that the documents in the shape of Bill of Entry relied upon by the adjudicating authority cannot be held to be a representation of contemporaneous imports’. A comparison of the said
documents with the appellants’ invoice and the other documents, show that apart from being different in quantity and quality of the goods, the purchase in the relied upon documents is from the dealer whereas the appellants have directly purchased from the manufacturer. The Revenue has not produced any evidence to rebut the appellants’ stand that the goods were of stock lot. The sale confirmation by the supplier of the goods clearly described the goods as stock lot and the invoices raised by them also described the same as stock lot goods. As such, merely because the goods under assessment and the relied upon documents, show that the same to be of China origin, does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that they are comparable. Inasmuch as there is no other evidence on record to deny the genuineness of the manufacturers’ invoice, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.