- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. CUSTOMS APPLICATION NO.1 OF 2004 ... The Commissioner of Customs ...Applicant v/s. M/s.A.K.Jewellers ...Respondent ... Mr.Y.R.Mishra for the Applicant. Mr.K.A.Chotani for the Respondent. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED: 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C.: This application was admitted on 13th July, 2005 on the following questions of law- 1. Whether on the facts, circumstances and the evidence available on record, Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the declared invoice values were negotiated prices when the importer had failed to adduce any evidence in support of the declared values as per invoice. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances in the case the Tribunal was right in Law in holding that the declared invoice value should be accepted as true transaction values when the importer had failed to furnish any evidence in support of the declared invoice values as provided for under Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the declared invoice values should be accepted as transaction values when it was not - 2 - established that the sale was in the ordinary course of trade under fully competitive conditions and that the sale did not involve any abnormal discount or reduction from the ordinary competitive price as provided for in proviso (a) and (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. 2. The dispute in the present case relates to over-valuation of the rough diamonds imported by the Respondent. The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is that the goods were imported at negotiable price and the value declared was duly supported by the correspondence exchanged between the assessee and the exporter. Moreover, the imported rough diamonds have been reexported. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the decision of the Tribunal is based on finding of facts and no question of law arises from the said order. Accordingly, the Application is rejected. Rule discharged with no order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)