ORDER
U.L Bhat, J. (President)
1. On the occasion of appellant’s marriage in 1987, her cousin living in Hong Kong purchased “Xerox Copier/Paper Master/P/M Camera for offset printing and sent it to appellant, as marriage present. On behalf of the appellant invoice, showing price of Hong Kong $ 6,500 and connected documents were produced along with the cash memo relating to the purchase by donor’s purchaser which was of the date 4-4-1987 for a price of Hong Kong $ 15,600. The correctness of the invoice was doubted on the basis of price of £ 6,500 said to have been noticed for a similar copier made in U.K. The Deputy Collector passed an order adopting the U.K price as the basis and giving due weightage to the different source of origin (the machine imported by the appellant was of Japanese origin and imported from Hong Kong) and giving discount available in practice, Deputy Collector fixed the assessable value at Rs. 75,000/-. He rejected the contention that the machine was an old one on the basis of physical verification of goods said to have been made by him. Since there was no import licence supporting the import, the machine was confiscated Under Section lll(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. He directed duty to be paid on CIF value of Rs. 75,000/-, fixed redemption fine at Rs. 70,000/-. In appeal, Collector (Appeals) reduced the value to Rs. 60,000/- and redemption fine to Rs. 40,000/-. Being aggrieved by these orders, the importer has filed the present appeal. We have heard both sides.
2. The cash memo and the invoice produced by the appellant do not contain full description of the machine such as model number or model name, size and the like. The Deputy Collector while referring to the comparable import did not advert to the particulars of the machine dealt within the machine so imported, such as brand name, size and the like. Even the date of import, whether the import was made from the manufacturer or supplier was also not indicated in the order. In these circumstances, it is not possible to agree that the machine imported at the price of £ 6,500 is identical or similar to the machine imported by the appellant. Therefore, the price for the U.K. machine cannot form the basis for assessing the price in the international trade of the machine imported.
3. The appellant did not disclose the 1987 price of a new machine nor did the appellant have any specific case that the machine was manufactured prior to 1987. It is not known if a proper examination report has been prepared in the Custom House. The cash memo of the appellant’s donor’s purchaser and invoice of the appellant came into existence at an interval of about 4 months but the price difference was considerable. Appellant has no explanation at all for such price difference. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the assessable value should be Hong Kong $ 15,600 FOB. Duty payable will be reassessed on this basis. The redemption fine is reduced to Rs. 10,000/-. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.