Per T.K. Jayaraman : This appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 14/2004-Cus. dated 20.01.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore.

2. The appellants filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of 8 Nos. of Cisco 2620XM Router and declared the value of Rs. 199879.43. Since the value declared was substantially lower than the recorded price of the same item imported during more or less the same period, the appellants were asked to furnish catalogue of the item. The appellants gave reasons for the lower price. After examining the issue, the lower authority rejected the Transaction Value of the imported goods. He fixed the value of the imported goods at Rs. 1,03,039/- per unit. The appellants were aggrieved with the decision of the lower authority. Hence, they appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original and passed the impugned order. The appellants challenge the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).

3. Shri B. Anil Kumar, the learned Advocate, appeared for the appellants and Shri K. Sambi Reddy, the learned JDR, for the Revenue.

4. The learned Advocate urged the following points:-

(i) The Commissioner (Appeals) has given a decision contrary to his own findings. In para 4 of the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the submission of the appellant that third party imports should not be considered since the appellants were Gold Certified Partners. In spite of giving such a finding, the Commissioner (Appeals) concurs with the order of the Adjudicating Authority and upholds the Transaction Value in terms of Rule 10A read with Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 which would mean that the value of the imported goods is to be enhanced to Rs. 1,03,039/-.

(ii) The differential demand was proposed on the basis of contemporaneous imports by third party and not on the imports made by the appellants themselves. The Bill of Entry relied on by the Adjudicating Authority for enhancing the price was not provided to the appellants. This fact has been taken note of by the Commissioner (Appeals).

(iii) In terms of Rule 3 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, the value of imported goods for the purpose of assessment shall always be the Transaction Value subject to the provisions of Rules 9 and 10A. If and only if the Transaction Value cannot be determined, recourse to Rules 5 to 8 can be had. Since in the present case, the price at which the goods have been imported by the appellants duly satisfy the requirements of Transaction Value, recourse to Rules 5 to 8 is not possible.

(iv) In terms of Rule 4 (2), the Transaction Value of imported goods can be discarded only in the circumstances mentioned therein.

(v) Revenue has proceeded on the basis that there were other contemporaneous imports made. But, there is no evidence to show that the appellants had any interest in CISCO, the supplier. The appellants have produced the manufacturer's documents to show that their price and the price declared in the invoice are the same and not in variance. Revenue has not discharged its burden to prove as to which of the conditions specified in Rule 4 (2) was not satisfied so as to reject the Transaction Value.

(vi) Apex Court's decision in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai - 2000 (41) RLT 621 (SC)=2000 (122) ELT 321 (SC) is relied on.

(vii) In the present case, all conditions in Rule 4 (2) are satisfied. It is not the case of the department that the sale is not in the ordinary course of time; that it involves abnormal discount; that it involves special discount limited to exclusive agents; that no quantifiable data exists with regard to adjustments required to be made; that there are any restrictions as to the disposition or use of the goods; that the sale price is subject to some condition or consideration for which a value cannot be determined in respect of goods being valued; that any part of the proceeds of any subsequent re-s