ORDER
1. This Revenue appeal against the OIA No. C.Cus.737/97 dated 29.7.97 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the value declared by the importer with regard to Arc Welding Set at US $ 185 as against the enhanced value of US $ 2700. The Commissioner has noted that enhancement has been done on the basis of import of another machine by M/s. Sieflex Robotic Company at US $ 2700 in 1995. The Commissioner has noted that there is not enough evidence produced by the revenue to enhance value and machine cannot be said to be the same. The finding recorded by the Commissioner is noted herein below:-
This is an appeal against Order-in-Original No.S.Misc. 1/97-S.Misc. 1/97-(Courier)/S13/94/97-AIR dated 20.6.97 valuing an are welding set at Rs. 45,000/- against declared value and about Rs.4,000/-. The goods arrived by courier who could not produce any evidence of its valuation. The goods were valued at Rs.45,000/- on the basis of value of a similar machine imported in 1995 at US $ 2700. Subsequently, the appellant approached the Customs authorities with the evidence that the goods were valued at A $ 185. He submitted that the machine was a gift from his brother is Australia and had been sent for his personal use. However, by that time, the goods had already been assessed at Rs.45,000/- and handed over to the couriers.
The appellant produced copy of a cash memo receipt dated 26.3.97 in support of the evidence that the welding set was purchased for A$ 180. He also referred to declaration made on the shipment airway bill of the courier and the original value declaration made by his brother-in-law while sending the parcel to him. He also submitted copy of catalogue of welding machine in which price of a similar welding set is indicated as A $ 182.25. He requested that the declared value may be accepted.
I see from the Original order that the lower authority has not indicated what were the specifications of the machine imported by M/s. Sietlex Robotic Company and valued at US $ 2700 in 1995. She has also not indicated what are the specifications of the present machine. The value fixed at Rs.45,000/-, therefore, does not appear to have any reasonable basis. On the otherhand, the appellant have produced enough evidence to show that an amount of A $ 179 was paid for the machine in question. I accept this price and direct that the machine be valued at the declared price.
3. Ld. SDR submits that the machine was imported during the contemporaneous period and the department has rightly enhanced the value for re-assessment. Therefore, OIO is required to be upheld by setting aside the impugned order.
4. None appeared for respondents despite notice.
5. We have noticed from the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) as extracted above that he has given a clear cut finding that the importer’s machine does not have same specification with the machine having a value of US $ 2700. The import has also taken place during 1997 while the machine which is compared imported in 1995 with different specification. They are not comparable goods and there is no evidence to show that the goods were same and imported from the same country of origin and during the same time. Therefore, the Commissioner has rightly set aside the OIO which is in keeping with the terms of the Apex Court judgment on valuation and the ratio laid down that the value declared under Section 14 is required to be accepted unless there is strong evidence of contemporaneous import as held by the Apex Court rendered in BASANT INDUSTRIES – 1996 (81) ELT 195 (SC) and MIRAH DECOR Vs CCE – 1999 (65) ELT 3 (SC). As there is no merit in this appeal, same is rejected.
(Pronounced & Dictated in Open Court)