ORDER
V.P. Gulati, Vice President
1. The issue in the appeal relates to the valuation of the impugned goods. The original authority enhanced the value from US $ 25 per kg. to US $ 29 per kg. based on recorded prices. The learned lower appellate authority however accepted the plea of the appellants for acceptance of the value of US $ 25 as invoiced.
The learned lower appellate authority has held as under in this regard :-
“The documentary evidence placed on record indicate that the subject goods were quoted at the price of 25 US dollars per kg. CIF by the suppliers and the invoice also reflects this price only. The appellants have submitted copies of the sales cofirmation to two other importers indicating the price of tussah silk at US dollars 25 per kg. CIF and 23.50 kg. CIF respctively at or about the same time of the subject import. Further the lower authority has enhanced the value based on an invoice which was raised 7 months prior to the subject import and this is not in accordance with the valuation rules in force. According to valuation rules the identical goods should be imported at or about the same time as the goods being valued. The lower authority has not followed this guideline and also has not indicated why he has apopted the invoice value which is 7 months old. The appellants have produced all documentary evidence in support of their invoice price such as price list, sales confirmation, letter of credit etc., and also produced sales confirmation to two other importers indicating the same price.”
In the grounds of appeal following has been urged :-
“(1) There was a difference in the recorded price available in India and the declared price of the subject goods.
(2) The importers have neither adduced any convincing reasons nor produced documentary evidence for the reduction in value.
In terms of Rule 3 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988, if the value cannot be determined under the transaction value method, the value should be determined by proceeding sequentially through Rule 5 to 8 of these rules.
The value of the subject imported goods cannot be determined under the provisions of any of the rules from 5-7 and the value has to be determined under Rule 8 of Customs Valuation (DOPIG) Rules, 1988, by using reasonable means consistent with the priniciples and general provisions of these rules read with Section 14(1) of Customs Act, 1962 and on the basis of date available in India.
In terms or interpretative notes to Rule 8 the methods of valuation to be employed under Rule 8 may be those laid down in Rules 4 to 7, inclusive, but a reasonable flexibility in the application of such methods would be in conformity with the aims and provisions of Rule 8.
Accordingly, in the instant case also, the ninety days requirement has been administered flexibly and the import invoice value of US $ 29 per kg. supplied vide invoice No. UL/1675/90, dated 16-10-1990 was taken as basis for enhancement under Rule 8 as against the declared value of US $ 25 per kg. imported vide invoice No. U.L. /2088/91, dated 22-5-1991. The enhancement of value from US $ 25 per kg. to US $ 29 per kg. under Rule 8 of valuation rules was determined consistent with the principles and provisions of these rules and Subsections of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and on the basis of data available in India.
Therefore, the Collector (Appeals) order of setting aside the original authority’s order canot be accepted.”
2. The learned SDR, Shri R.Victor Thiyagaraj, for the department has urged when the recorded price is available, the department rightly can have resort to Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules. He, however, could not clarify as to on what basis the transaction value could be discarded in the face of the evidence which was produced by the respondent before the authority below. He has merely stated that recorded price should form the basis for the value. The respondent are absent and there is no request for adjournment. The appeal is taken up for disposal on merits. We observe that there is nothing in the order of the learned original authority to say that the appellants price was manipulated or that there had been any extra commerical consideration shown to the appellant for the sale of goods at US $ 25. The goods it is seen imported are from the same supplier as the goods in the case of earlier imports the recorded price of which has been adopted. The appellants before the learned lower appellate authority had produced evidence by way of sales confirmation of two other importers for the import of the goods as US $ 25 per kg. The importation relied upon by the department was made seven months earlier to the importation in question. It is quite likely that there was change of price during that period. Therefore unless it could be shown that the invoice price for the goods was in anyway manipulated or there were some extra commerical considerations involved the invoice price in view of the evidence produced before the lower authority cannot be discarded. We observe that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned lower authority’s reliance on the evidence of earlier imports produced could not be faulted. In the above view of the matter, we hold that there is no force in the plea of the revenue and we dismiss the appeal.