T.K.JAYARAMAN, J. - (1.)THIS is an appeal filed against OIO No. 31/01 (SIB), dated 12 -12 -2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin.
(2.)THE appellant filed Bill of Entry wherein the declaration made was motors for compressors. However, on examination it was found that the goods were actually compressors for air -conditioners. Prima facie, there was mis -declaration. Revenue also obtained information from Mumbai Customs House, that similar goods are valued at higher rates when compared to the value declared by the appellant. For example, for identical goods the price quoted by M/s. Sandon Vikas (I) (P) Ltd, Faridabad was US $ 113 per unit. Another value quoted by M/s. Nagoya Automobile Parts Pvt. Ltd. is US $ 163. But, details of identical goods imported through port were called and the Customs House, Mumbai in their letter dated 23 -12 -2000 confirmed that computer printouts of Bill of Entry of contemporaneous imports during April 97 to June 97 showed details of clearances of compressors for Car air -conditioners at US $ 135 per piece. In view of the above, Revenue proceeded against the appellants and the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin, in the impugned order fixed the value of the compressor imported at US $ 135 as against the declared value of US $30. The adjudicating authority confirmed a demand of Rs. 9,43,447/ - and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 8,00,000/ -. He also held that the mis -declaration of value is established. The appellants have strongly challenged the impugned order.
(3.)SRI . Laxminarayana, learned Advocate appeared for the appellants and Sri. L. Narasimhamurthy, learned SDR appeared for the Revenue. The learned Advocate adduced the following arguments :
i. Even though Revenue relied on the value of contemporaneous imports in Mumbai, the relevant Bill of Entry has not been produced.

ii. There is no evidence that the items imported in Mumbai were identical with the items imported by the appellants.

iii. The goods imported by the appellants are Compressors for car air -conditioners. It is not known whether goods imported in Mumbai were also compressors for car air -conditioners. They may be compressors for air -conditioners for bus or tempo or any other type of vehicle. The following case -laws were relied upon.
Saahil Trends v. CC (Prev), Ahmedabad - 2005 (183) E.L.T. 75 (T) Valuation (Customs) - Enhancement of value - Identical Goods - Bill of Entry, relied upon by Department to enhance value, not available on record, hence, it cannot be concluded that goods imported under such Bill of Entry were identical to goods imported by appellants - Further, goods being imported at different commercial levels, and in different quantities, cannot be said to be identical - Hence, value cannot be enhanced on the basis of the value of such goods - Rules 2 (1)(c) and 5 of Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988 - Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962. Finolex Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Pune - 2004 (174) E.L.T. 341 (T) Valuation (Customs) - Transaction value - Rejection of transaction value based merely on fact that another importer is importing at a higher price, which is not permissible - No material to cast a shadow on transaction value - Contemporaneous transaction values can vary for different commercial reasons like quantity when order is placed and many other factors - Rejection of transaction value and demanding duty on goods based on a higher value, not justified - Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962. [para 4]