ORDER
S.S. Kang, Vice President
1. Heard both sides.
2. The appellant filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case the appellant made import of tyre, tubes and flaps from China and declared the value of US $ 29.5 per set. The Revenue issued a show-cause notice for enhancement of the value of the goods. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and enhanced the value of (sic, to) US $ 33.75 per set. The contention of the appellant is that there is no material on record to reject the value declared by the appellant and there is also no evidence on record to show that the appellant paid over and above transaction value. The contention is that the adjudicating authority held that the goods imported by the appellant are not similar goods, which were imported by other importers and despite this relied upon such imports for enhancing the value of the imported goods, after giving the deduction of 25% in the value. The contention is that as there is a variation in brand and quality in the goods imported by the appellant and in the goods imported by other importer, therefore, the enhancement is without any basis. The appellant relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Finolex Industries Ltd. v. CCE, 2004 (174) ELT 341 wherein similar situation the transaction value was accepted by the Tribunal.
3. The contention of the Revenue is that during the relevant period the import made by the other importers from the same supplier at the higher value then declared by the appellant and the price varies from 51.51 US $ to 46.03. The appellant relied upon the finding of the adjudicating authority whereby six instances of the import of the similar tyres at a higher value is mentioned.
4. In this case the contention of the appellant is that transaction value was rejected without any basis. We find that the facts in the case of Finolex Industries (supra) are different from the facts of the present case, as in the present case there are instances of the same goods were imported at a higher price during the same period. We also find that the adjudicating authority relied upon six instances whereby the similar goods in a similar quantity were imported at a higher value. In these circumstances, we find no merit in the contention of the appellant and there was no material on record to reject the transaction value of the goods. We find no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed.