- (1.) Apart from the fact that the point in dispute in the present appeal is concluded by two decisions of this Court in Eicher Tractors Limited Haryana V/s. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, 2001 1 SCC 315 and Mirah Exports Pvt. Ltd . v.Collector of Customs, 1998 3 SCC 292, the following finding : It is admitted in the present case that goods of Rahul Enterprises were described differently ad PVC cloth as against the declaration of the goods by the appellants in their Bill of Entry as Nylon Oxford PVC coated fabrics . Appellants goods have been tested and the result of the test has been extracted supra. From the extracted test result, we notice that the percentage of nylon is 28% with percentage of PVC composition is 72% and thickness of the sample is 0.37 mm. Revenue has not brought on record the equivalent feature of the goods declared by Rahul Enterprises. The ld. Commissioner had noted that Rahul Enterprises goods thickness was 0.4 mm and also goods are not identical and similarity of these two consignments cannot be questioned. We are not agreeable with this findings. The goods should be identical and not just similar which should correspond identically in the nature of goods in terms of quality, quantity, place of origin and time of origin this has been well laid down both under Section 14 of the Act as well as the ruling of various judgments rendered by the Tribunal and the Apex Court. Admittedly, in the present case the goods are not identical. The Commissioner has on his own come to the conclusion that they are similar and just because they are similar, should be treated on par with the value declared by Revenue. In the absence of contemporaneous nature of goods by Rahul Enterprises, their Bill of Entry cannot be taken as that of identical goods for the purpose of enhancing the value of the appellant s goods under Section 14 of the Customs Act. Further, the transaction value cannot be rejected unless there is strong evidence initially produced by the Revenue. The burden to prove undervaluation is on the Revenue as is well settled. In this case, the same has not been discharged by producing the evidence of contemporaneous in nature. Mere producing of the Bill of Entry of Rahul Enterprises which had different description of goods, and the goods not having been tested there and its features not brought out, therefore, we are not in a position to uphold the impugned order. The ld. Commissioner has erred in not following the remand proceedings as well as in not in correctly applying and appreciating the Apex Court judgment which has laid down the law. The Revenue has not produced the evidence of contemporaneous imports in terms of identical goods of same nature, quantity & quality. Therefore, the appellant s plea that there was negotiated price and the quantity was 5 times more that (sic) that of Rahul Enterprises and they were different goods is required to be accepted. Their appeal is allowed by setting aside the importer (sic) order with consequential relief. Ordered accordingly. recorded by the Tribunal is a pure finding of fact which cannot be interfered with by this Court.
(2.) The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.;