ORDER
K. Prakash Anand, Member (T)
1. Appeallant was First Secretary in the Embassy of India, Kathmandu. He purchased a car Nissan Sunny 1000 CC, which was in his possession’ in Nepal from August, 1984 to July, 1986. On transfer of his residence, after completion of service in Nepal, appellant imported the car into India in July, 1986. Appellant, is in appeal before us against the orders of the lower authority in regard to the valuation of the car for purposes of levy of Import duties.
2. We have heard the appellant Shri O.P. Nagpal in person and Shri A.S.R. Nair, SDR, for the department.
3. Shri Nagpal was brief in his submissions and relied on his written grounds of appeal. These are summed up as under: –
(i) It is submitted that the lower authorities have wrongly denied to him the normal trade discount of 15%, which is a general practice in all sales of motor cars by manufacturers to distributors or purchasers, although not exhibited in the invoice of the distributors or traders to the individual purchasers. It is stated that the car was purchased from a trading company who would have enjoyed the trade discount, although the same had not been passed on to the appellant. This, it is stated would not disentitle the appellant to deduction of the normal discount. In support of this submission, appellant has cited the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Siri Ram Bansal & Shri N.S. Bhatnagar v. Collector of Customs, Bombay -1988 (16) ECR 265.
(ii) It is also claimed that appellant has been unjustly and illegally denied a 10% “Diplomatic discount” given to him by the manufacturer and actually availed by him. It is stated that this is admissible as the discount is extended to a class of buyers, viz. all diplomats and consulates.
(iii) Finally, it is contended that appellant has been denied the full benefit of deduction in value of the car on account of the damage suffered in accident and the cost of repair charges paid.
4. Shri A.S.R. Nair, SDR, while responding, reiterates the view taken by the lower authorities. He emphasizes that this is a case where no catalogue price is available and the assessment has been made on the basis of the supplier’s invoice price. Therefore, it is submitted, there is no case for deduction of any trade discount on valuation undertaken on this basis.
It is also submitted that the special discount of 10% claimed is not admissible, as it is not a normal trade discount and there is no evidence that it is extended to all diplomats.
As regards the claim for damages, it is pointed out that the Collector (Appeals) as already allowed the depreciation to the extent of Rs. 2,000/- which is more than ade-(sic) e.
5. We have given due consideration to the submissions made by both sides. In the statement of facts filed by him, Shri Nagpal has admitted that the Customs had informed him that this particular model of the car was not listed in the International Car Catalogue 1984 available with the department. Thereafter, the appellant obtained the manufacturers price from M/s. Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. themselves. This was declared to (sic)J-Yen 838,000. It is pointed out by Shri Nagpal that this is the manufacturers price (sic) which normal discount and depreciation should have been allowed to him. This would have been a perfectly valid claim but for the fact that appellant has also furnished a certificate of the net C.I.F. Calcutta price of his car furnished by the suppliers on the basis of the FOB Yen 838,000 price. This shows that special discount of Yen 40,000 ha been extended to the importer. There is no mention of 15% trade discount having been extended. The argument of Shri Nagpal that he has purchased the car from a Trading company who had apparently enjoyed the discount as his profit and not passed on the same to him knocks the bottom out of his claim to his discount. We, therefore, reject this claim. Incidentally, we observe that the point at issue came up for consideration by this Bench in the case of Shri Inderjit Singh Bawa, Shri N.M. Swami, Shri Siri Ram Bonsai, Dr. N.S. Bhatnagar v. Collector of Customs, Bombay and the view taken was the same. (Order No. 24 to 27/1985-A, dated 15.1.85).
6. As regards the so called “Diplomatic discount” of 10% we agree with the learned SDR that Shri Nagpal has failed to establish that this 10% “Diplomatic discount” is in fact extended to all diplomats. Shri Nair had also pointed out that the 10% “diplomatic discount” does not work out to 40,000 Yen, as claimed by Shri Nagpal, but Shri Nagpal could not give any answer on this aspect also.
7. As regards the claim for damages, we find that the total repair cost on account of the accidents were claimed to be of the order of Rs. 5,982.76. This is sought to be related to the original price of the car, which was claimed to be Rs. 52,160/-. It is, therefore, claimed that in the light of these facts, 10% depreciation should have been given on account of damages. Repair costs are notoriously disproportionate to the original cost of motor vehicle and, therefore, cannot constitute a rational basis for valuation of repaired vehicle. In both the accidents, which this car met, obviously, there was some damage only to the body of the vehicle. It is not shown that there was any damage to the engine. Considering the total bill for the body work, the expenditure on that account cannot be considered toolarge. The Customs observed that the car did not bear any evidence of such damage. Nevertheless, the Collector (Appeals) has allowed deduction of Rs. 2,000/-, which we hold is quite fair, considering the fact that, over and above this, depreciation of 16% for one year and 3% for each quarter for three quarters of use, totalling 25% in all was also allowed before arriving at the assessable value.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, we see no reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities which are upheld and the appeal is dismissed.