ORDER : The appellant Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Commissionerate (Import), New Delhi seeks to maintain this appeal under Section 130-E(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 against the order dated 27.05.2020 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (‘the Tribunal’). 2. By the order impugned, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-dealer; has modified the directions for enhancement of transaction value of imported goods by 20% instead of 77% for the years 2013-14 to 2016-17; has rejected the enhancement for the year 2017-18 while holding that the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 would not apply; and has remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, SVB to re-determine adjustment, if any, in the transaction value on the basis of deductive value and computed value of the goods imported by the respondent-dealer. 3. It is sought to be argued on behalf of the appellant by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the Commissioner had rightly rejected the transaction value of the imported goods, particularly when the imports from a related supplier were found comparable with the imports by the Authorised Stocking Distributers (‘ASD’) and the declared value of goods by the respondent was ordered to be re-determined so as to bring it at par with the price shown by the ASD, by enhancing the value by 77%. It is submitted that while reducing such enhancement to 20%, the Tribunal has not given any basis for the same; and has recorded such observations and findings that the remand order has become restrictive, leaving practically no scope for authorities to take a fresh view of the matter. 4. In our view, the contentions remain untenable because the Tribunal has delt with the matter in meticulous details and has pointed out substantial basis for its findings that the transaction value shown by the respondent and that of the ASD cannot be treated as comparable at commercial level and quantitative level; and has also pointed out that the promotion activity was undertaken only by the respondent for which, it was earning higher discount. The Tribunal has also found that the difference gradually decreased from the year 2014-15 and came at par in the year 2017-18. The Tribunal has, inter alia, pointed out the reasons for its findings in the following: - “27. The Tribunal has also found that the difference gradually decreased from the year 2014-15 and came at par in the year 2017-18. The Tribunal has, inter alia, pointed out the reasons for its findings in the following: - “27. We find that the appellant is not the sole importer and the goods have also been imported by other distributor/ seller with respect to some of the goods namely Authorized Stocking Distributors (ASD). Further, most of the goods imported by the appellant like RF products and on made to order products as well as non RF products only imported by the appellant are not imported by the ASD and others. We further find that the appellant imports in bulk for resale and also stocks the goods in sufficient quantity to meet the demand for the goods which results to additional cost to them in warehousing and reselling of the goods. Further, the appellant also undertakes sales promotion activity which is not done by the ASD and other importers. Accordingly, the higher discount enjoyed by the appellant on the list price as compared to the ASD has got reasonable justification. We further find that the difference has gradually decreased after the year 2014-15 and it come at par in the year 2017-18, rather the average import price is higher of the appellant. Further, the quantity imported by the appellant are 20 to 280 times greater than that imported by ASD as already noticed herein above. Thus, mere 5% adjustment allowed by the Court below in the transaction value is without any justification. In view of the transaction value of some of the identical goods imported by the appellant and other importers there appears to be requirement of some adjustment. Accordingly, we modify the direction of enhancement of transaction value by 77% to 20% for the period 2013-14 to 2016-17. For the year 2017-18, there is apparently no such difference in the import value by other importers and the appellant and such as no enhancement in the transaction value is required. We also noticed that part collection of deductive value submitted by the appellant, they are only making a nominal profit. The appellant has to occur significant reduce licenses from the Telecom Department and DGFT for import of RF products which are not incurred by other resellers. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified to the extent as indicated hereinabove. 28. We also noticed that part collection of deductive value submitted by the appellant, they are only making a nominal profit. The appellant has to occur significant reduce licenses from the Telecom Department and DGFT for import of RF products which are not incurred by other resellers. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified to the extent as indicated hereinabove. 28. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that as the ASD do not import ‘RF products’ as well as the ‘made to order products’, but some products are imported both by the appellant and the ASD, but are not comparable. Such imports constitute a significant part of the total imports made by the appellant. Such imports are in the range of 16 to 51% during the period 2013-14 to 2017-18 or an average of 36% of the total imports made by the appellant. Further, we find that the quantity imported by the appellant is more than 200 times than the quantity imported by the ASD. Further, we find that the ASD placed order for import usually when they have sales order in hand and do not undertake stocking of the products. Whereas the appellant irrespective of the sales orders in hand, the appellant imports in bulk and stocks, and maintains an inventory. Thus they incur much higher selling and distribution cost. Thus, we find that there is no reasonable basis for enhancement of 77% in the transaction value as per the impugned order. The proposition of Revenue that the import price of ASD are comparable to that of the appellant is a vague, in view of the heavy difference in the quantity imported of identical goods. Thus, the appellant and the ASD cannot be treated as a comparable at commercial level….” 5. The Tribunal has also referred to sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 and has further observed: - “… We further find that sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 in clause (b) provides that, in case of sale between the related person the transaction value shall be accepted whenever the importer demonstrates that the declared value of the goods being valued, closely approximate to one of the following values imported at or about same time. Sub-clause (ii) in clause (b) provides for the deductive value of the identical goods or similar goods. Sub-clause (ii) in clause (b) provides for the deductive value of the identical goods or similar goods. Further, it is provided that in applying the value use for comparison, due account shall be taken of demonstrated difference in commercial level, quantity levels, adjustment in accordance with the provision of Rule 10 and cost incurred by the seller in sales, in which he and the buyer are not related. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 further provides, if the value cannot be determined under the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3, the value shall be determined by proceedings sequentially through Rule 4 to 9. Admittedly, it is evident on the face of the record that deductive value was available before the Court below which have not been rejected by a speaking order, thus, violating the provisions of Rule 3 (3) of the Valuation Rules. Accordingly, we hold that as the deductive value for calculation have not been rebutted by the Revenue, the same has to be followed for calculation of any adjustment in the transaction value in terms of Rule 3(3) of the Valuation Rules. We further hold that application of Rule 4 by the Court below is not justified in the facts and circumstances. Accordingly, we allow this appeal by way of remand to the Court below to the Deputy Commissioner, SVB to re-determine the adjustment, if any, in the transaction value on the basis of deductive value and computed value….” 6. In an overall analysis, it is apparent that there had been want of application of mind on the part of the Deputy Commissioner to the material circumstances and the relevant factors; and the Tribunal has disapproved his order on relevant considerations and after examining the entire record. Moreover, when the matter essentially proceeds in its own facts and the view taken by the Tribunal does not appear to be an impermissible one, we find no reason to consider interference in appeal. 7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.