ORDER
T.P. Nambiar, Member (J)
1. The present appeal is filed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Madras wherein he enhanced the price of IV. Cannulae from US $ .35 to .40 US $ per piece. The case of the department is that they got the price from the manufacturer’s Calcutta Office wherein the price is shown as .40 US $ for India per piece.
2. The learned Consultant for the appellants Shri Kumaraswamy, contended before us that even though the manufacturer’s price for India per piece is shown as .40 US $ the appellants purchased the same from the agent of the manufacturer in Switzerland. In this connection he pointed out that the agent at Switzerland directed the manufacturer to supply the same to the appellants at .35 US $ per piece, and that the agents purchased the same quantity at the price of .32 US $ per piece. He pointed out that since the traders purchased large quantity, the manufacturers sold the same at a reduced price of .32 US $ per piece. After adding their margin of profit they directed the manufacturer to send the same to the appellants at a price of .35 US $ per piece. In this connection he referred us to the order placed by the agent Ohri International Trading Company EST dated 18 July, 1996 which goes to show that the price at which they purchased the goods is .32 US $ per piece. This quantity which was purchased by them was sold to the appellants after adding their profit margin. This price is mentioned in the invoice. He therefore, stated that this price of the appellants is to be accepted.
3. Shri V. Thyagaraj, the learned SDR contended before us that the manufacturer’s price was obtained by the department which shows that the price is US $ .40 per piece and this price is required to be accepted. On a query from the Bench as to whether any discount structure is shown in the price, he stated that there is no such discount structure shown in the price which was obtained by the department.
4. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. It is true that the department got the manufacturers price list, but there is no discount structure mentioned in the manufacturer’s price list which was obtained by the department. On the contrary, the appellants have produced evidence of the order placed by M/s. Ohri International Trading Company EST dated 18-7-1996 which has quoted the price of .32 US $ per piece for Venflon 16G, 18G, 20G, and 22G for quantities of 10,000,1,25,000,2,15,000 and 2,00,000 respectively. The appellants have been supplied the very same goods by adding the profit margin of M/s. Ohri International Trading Company EST at .35 US $ per piece. This reduced price compared to the price indicated in the manufacturer’s price list is on account of the quantity discount which has been allowed for this bulk purchase. Normally in international trade when bulk purchases are made some consideration by way of quantity discount is given. In the present case, the quantity discount over the list price comes to about 11%. In the absence of any averment to the contrary, that the discount could not have been allowed, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, this discount allowed cannot be considered as excessive. We observe that the bona fides of the transaction are brought out by the fact that the appellants have purchased same goods through the agent of the manufacturer and they themselves have got the goods at the price of .32 US $ per piece and they have invoiced the goods to the appellants at .35 US $ per piece after making their profit for themselves and the transaction appears to be in the normal course of international trade. In this view of the matter loading of the price as was sought to be done in the impugned order is not correct. Accordingly, we set aside the confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty and allow the appeal with consequential relief.