T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) - (1.)The Revenue has filed this appeal against Order -in -Appeal No. C.CUS: 976/98, dated 13 -8 -1998.
(2.)Brief facts of the case are as follows. The respondents imported a consignment of Acrylic fibre waste. The declared value of the goods was US 0.40 per kg. The original authority rejected the transaction value of the goods on the following grounds :
"(a) At present status of global economy, the Thai currency, has been devalued more than the Taiwanese currency. Obviously the Thai origin goods will be cheaper. (b) The variation of US 0.20/kg in the price of Thai origin acrylic waste and Taiwanese origin acrylic waste is too much to accept. (c) It cannot be accepted that there is no change in the price of acrylic waste of Taiwanese origin in the last five years (i.e.) US 0.40/kg. (d) Since there is no imports from Taiwan of similar goods in the recent past, the value of subject item can be compared only to the value of similar goods or other origin". 3. Aggrieved over the above order, the Respondents approached the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed their appeal with the following observations -

"Mere availability of an invoice at higher value also cannot be a ground for rejection of transaction value under Rule 4. The invoice relates to goods of different country of origin. Further, the quantity mentioned therein is 10,000 kg. The quantity imported in the present case however is 76,000 kg. in the light of Tribunal's judgment, supra, comparison can be made only with similar goods. In this case, they are different on account of different country of origin and quantities are not comparable".
4. The Revenue is aggrieved over the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that similar goods were imported by different parties at declared price of US 0.60 per kg, through Mumbai port. 5. Smt. R. Bhagya Devi, learned SDR appeared for the Revenue and Shri A.K. Jayaraj, learned Counsel appeared for the respondents. 6. We have carefully gone through the case records. It is seen that the goods imported by the respondents is from Taiwan, but the goods imported at Mumbai port whose, value has been relied upon by the Revenue is of Thai origin. Even the commercial levels are different. It is well established that in order to reject the transaction value, the circumstances enumerated under Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 should warrant. There is no allegation that apart from the transaction value, there was flow -back of any additional consideration. In the circumstances, there is no substance in the Revenue appeal and the same is rejected.