ORDER
C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)
1. The appellants are a multi-national Chartered Accountancy firm. They received from their head office in USA, 40 used Laptop Computers. The dispute is with regard to the valuation of these computers and the import policy in their case.
2. Arguing the appeal, the learned Counsel Shri Shekhar Vyas submits that the computers were five years old and the Customs authorities adopted their original value and allowed some depreciation for the purpose of fixing the assessable value. He submits that this procedure is entirely erroneous as the computers were more than 5 years old and had become obsolete and were of no commercial value in USA. Therefore, their price should have been fixed at the current CIF value, taking into account relevant facts. He also referred to Board’s F. No. 314/19/94-FTT No. IV, dated 22-9-1994 relating to depreciation of computers. He also submits that the customs authorities had not disclosed to them the authority for the rates of depreciation allowed. He submits that the valuation adopted by the customs was a huge over valuation. With regard to the confiscation of the computers, he submitted that these goods were eligible for import as capital goods in a service industry like Chartered Accountancy in terms of para 7 of the Import Policy for the period 1992-97.
3. Learned DR Shri K. Shiv Kumar explained that the depreciation was allowed as per norms as applicable to machinery.
4. We have perused the records and have considered the submissions made by both the sides. Due consideration was required to be given to the nature of the goods in question. It is common knowledge that computers become obsolete rapidly and five year old machine would have lost most of its original value. Therefore, the adjudicating authority was clearly in error in applying the depreciation permissible to machinery in respect of computers. Non-consideration of the norms laid down in F. No. 314/19/94-FTT No. VI, dated 22-9-1994 for computers was also not correct. The appellants submission regarding eligibility of the goods for import as capital goods also merits consideration. The case is, accordingly, remanded to the original authority for reconsideration with reference to valuation and eligibility for import. The appeal is disposed of in these terms.