ORDER 1. The Respondent herein is engaged in the business of import and during the course of business, on 2-7-2002 it entered into an agreement with one Galaxy Enterprises, Hong Kong, for import of plastic body, plastic lens camera at a unit price of US $ at 0.41. Pursuant to the said agreement Galaxy Enterprises dispatched the consignment of 750 cartons containing 30,000 pieces of the said cameras of China. In the Bill of Entry filed on 13-8-2002 the Respondent had cleared the aforesaid import it declared the unit price of US $ 0.41. The consignment was, however, detained by the Customs Officers on 14-8-2002. Investigation was carried out which resulted in issuance of show cause notice dated 8-11-2002. In the said notice it was mentioned that the price for unit declared as US $ 0.41 was wrong and the actual price was US $ 1.50. This price was stated on the basis of another import of the allegedly of the same goods effected by one M/s. SKP Trade Link. The Respondent replied to the same. This show cause notice culminated adjudication order dated 13-1-2004 whereby the goods in question were confiscated by the Commissioner. He, however, gave the option to the Respondent to get the goods released in terms of by giving bank guarantee of Rs. 10 lakhs and also for payment of differential duty amounting to Rs. 11,57,209/-. 2. The transaction value as declared by the Respondent was rejected on the ground that importer failed to produce the manufacturer's invoice and also that the price was fixed on contemporaneous import made by another firm during the relevant period, as mentioned above. 3. Aggrieved by this order, the Respondent filed an appeal before the CESTAT which has allowed the appeal vide impugned judgment. 4. This is how the Department is in appeal questioning the validity of the judgment of the CESTAT. 5. A perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal would show that the Tribunal has discarded the evidence of the so-called contemporaneous transaction on the basis of one declared by M/s. SKP Trade Link, primarily on the ground that it did not pertain to the same goods and further as far as M/s. SKP Trade Link is concerned, it had imported 25,000 pieces whereas the Respondent in the present case had imported much larger quantity, i.e., 90,000 pieces. 6. 6. After the appeal was admitted notice was issued to the Respondent which was duly served. Mr. Ashwani Kumar had put in appearance on behalf of the Respondent. Service is accordingly complete. 7. However, when the matter came up for hearing on 24-4-2015, nobody was present on behalf of the Respondent, instead we were informed that Mr. Ashwani Kumar Dhatwalia had told the Court Master that he had returned the file to the Respondent. He did not even mention this fact to the Court as he did not appeared when the matter was called on. Since no steps had been taken by the Respondent, seeking discharge of the matter, we directed the matter to be listed again today by showing the name of Mr. Dhatwalia in the cause list. His name duly appears in the cause list, despite he has chosen to remain absent. In these circumstances, we had no option but to hear the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Yashank Adhyaru. He has taken us through the records and has been able to successfully demonstrate that the Tribunal has erred on both counts in discarding the evidence which was produced by the Department in the form of contemporaneous import made by M/s. SKP Trade Link. 8. Present is the case where admittedly no manufacturer's invoice was produced. No doubt, Respondent had satisfactory explanation. Therefore, inasmuch as the goods were purchased by the Respondent for import from a trader and not from the manufacturer. However, in such a circumstance, when the Department doubted the valuation of the goods, as declared in the Bill of Entry, or for that matter in the invoice which was produced from the trader by showing the evidence to the effect that the same goods were imported at the same time at a much higher rate it was open to the Department to fix the transaction value on that basis. In the aforesaid circumstances, we find that the goods which were imported by M/s. SKP Trade Link are identical namely "NOVACAM-I" (Model-TOMA M-900) 35 mm-photographic cameras. We further find that the Respondent herein had imported 30,000 pieces only for which the Bill of Entry was filed and not the actual import of 90,000 pieces as accorded by the Tribunal. Therefore, in the case of M/s. SKP Trade Links the duty was charged valuing the goods at US $ at 1.50 per piece. We further find that the Respondent herein had imported 30,000 pieces only for which the Bill of Entry was filed and not the actual import of 90,000 pieces as accorded by the Tribunal. Therefore, in the case of M/s. SKP Trade Links the duty was charged valuing the goods at US $ at 1.50 per piece. Therefore, the quantities are also approximately the same and there is not much difference between the two. On these grounds, we set aside the judgment of the Tribunal and restore the order passed by the Commissioner. The appeals stand allowed in the aforesaid terms.