ORDER
Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. A very short point is involved in the present appeal. The appellants imported a consignment of seven second-hand jute mill machines. Along with the imports, relevant invoice, packing list, inspection certificate etc. were submitted. The inspection certificate issued by Chartered Engineers certified the price of the subject machines in the year of manufacture i.e. 1973-74 as US $ 88,000.00 per machine, which was done on the basis of information supplied by the importer. Accordingly, the actual price was calculated by allowing a depreciation of maximum 70% from the price of US $ 88,000.00. The appellants subsequently took up the matter with their foreign supplier who in their subsequent Fax Message showed that the price of the machine in the year of manufacture i.e. 1973-74 was US $ 55,000.00.
2. The dispute between the appellants and the Revenue is as regards the said original price of the machine in the year of its manufacture. Whereas the Revenue’s contention is that the first report as regards the price being US $ 88,000.00 should be accepted, the appellants’ contention is that the same should be accepted as US $55,00.00 per machine.
3. We have heard Shri P.R. Biswas, learned Consultant for the appellants and Shri A.K. Chattopadhyay, learned J.D.R. for the Revenue.
4. It is seen that the supplier of the machines in their Fax Message dated 29.6.95 informed the appellants that the price of new Apron Draft Spinning Frames in 1973-74 was in the region of US $88,000.00 each. Subsequently, they sent another Fax Message on 16.10.95 to the effect that the original FOB Price of an Apron Draft Spinning Frame in the year of manufacture, 1973-74 was maximum of US $55,000.00 each. In their subsequent Fax Message dated 24.1195, it was clarified that the valuation was based on the records held by them. However, it is seen that in the subsequent communications, the supplier has given no reason as to why the first intimation about the price of the machine being US $88,000.00 each should not be accepted as a correct information. Neither is their any clarification as to how the said price was quoted at US $88,000.00 each by the supplier. In their subsequent communication also, they had not clarified as to what was the mistake in their first price determination and as to on what documents held by them, the price has been re-determined. It is also seen that on some subsequent point of time, the price has been further reduced to US $45,000.00 per piece, though the appellants are not making any claim to adopt the said price. The above narration of facts only show that the foreign supplier was changing the price of the original machines at the instance of the appellants. No specific reasons have been given by them for discarding the first valuation given. There is no satisfactory explanation from the appellants’ side also as to under what circumstances, they doubted the first price of US $88,000.00 each machine given by the supplier and approached him for rectification of the same. In these circumstances, we do not feel inclined to accept the appellants’ contention. The appeal is accordingly rejected.
Pronounced in the open court.