ORDER : 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.4.2005 passed by the CESAT, West Zonal Branch at Mumbai upholding the Order-in-Original dated 28.10.1997 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. 2. Certain computers were imported by the appellant from M/s. Tulip Computers Asia Limited, Hongkong. The Customs Department, however, alleged that the goods were manufactured by M/s. Tulip Computers, Netherland and that the company has been shown as authorised dealer of Tulip computers in the directory with a further allegation that the prices declared by the appellant herein are lower than those of similar computers noticed with similar or identical specifications. 3. The Customs Department, pending investigation, provisionally assessed the Bills of Entry. Subsequently, the Department finalised the assessment by taking the value of the goods imported by the appellant itself in different Bills of Entry. The Commissioner passed the order on 28.10.1997 against the appellant. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant filed a statutory appeal before the CESAT, which also came to be dismissed under the impugned order. 4. Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted before us that the value declared by the appellant were fair and that the same were based on the prices given by the manufacturers and that it is the same price that such goods would fetch in India for capturing the market. 5. The aforesaid submission was, however, refuted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent contending, inter-alia, that price for similar goods imported by the appellant of identical specifications were higher than that declared. The counsel appearing for the respondent has also drawn our attention to the findings recorded by the Customs Department which are upheld by the CESAT. 6. We have considered the aforesaid submissions in the light of the records. On going through the records, we find that the Commissioner of Customs has held that the supplier in the present case was not the manufacturer itself and that the importer and the supplier were related. The Commissioner has further recorded a finding to the effect that prices declared by the appellant were not true transactional value and that they were importing the goods at a lower price to evade the customs duty. The aforesaid findings were challenged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has considered the respective cases and finally upheld the aforesaid findings mainly relying upon the prices of similar goods. 7. The aforesaid findings were challenged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has considered the respective cases and finally upheld the aforesaid findings mainly relying upon the prices of similar goods. 7. It cannot be disputed that in the present case invoice of the manufacturers was not produced. The findings of the Commissioner as also of the Tribunal are that the prices declared is not the transactional value, which is established from the fact that price of similar goods imported by the appellant was even higher. In our considered opinion, the deemed value of the goods as shown by the Department would definitely prevail over the transactional value shown by the appellant in the present case. The crucial fact is the fact that similar goods imported by the appellant itself for identical specifications were higher than those declared by the appellant. 8. In this connection, we may appropriately refer to the ratio of the decision of this Court in Radhey Shyam Ratanlal and Another vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, (2009) 13 SCC 157 . In the said decision, it was held by this Court that the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 would prevail over the transactional value when Rule 4 is not reflecting the prices on which such or like goods are sold or offered for sale. 9. That being the position and in the present case, the deemed value as is found by the Commissioner of Customs and upheld by the Tribunal being higher than the transaction value, the deemed value would get priority. 10. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. 11. Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court.