ORDER
K. Sankararaman, Member (T)
1. The appeal by the appellant, Shri S.R. Chanan is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 12-11-1990 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi rejecting their appeal before him and confirming the Order-in-Original passed by the Asstt. Collector of Customs, New Delhi. The Asstt. Collector had, vide his impugned Order rejected the declared invoice price at which the appellants had sought assessment of second hand Honda Accord Sedan G.L. 4 Doors 1598 CC (Model 1984) car. The Asstt. Collector had re-determined the assessable value of the car with reference to the price declared in the World Car Catalogue for 1984 Model of such make and allowed trade discount and depreciation of 46%. He had also added the reconditioning charge of Rs. 16,828/-, which had not been disclosed by the appellants originally but which had come to light during the scrutiny of relevant papers and information received from the supplier of the car.
2. The appellant is not present nor arranged for representation. However, a letter has been received from the ld. Counsel for the appellant containing the submissions in the matter placing reliance on a number of decisions relating to assessment of second hand cars.
3. We have taken note of the submissions contained in the letter from the ld. Counsel. We have also considered the submissions made by the ld. JDR, Mr. M. Ali. He stated that originally the appellants had not disclosed the freight incurred in importing the car into India. The Custom House had ascertained the freight rate from Shipping Corporation of India. We find that procedure followed by the Customs in arriving at the assessable value for the second hand imported car on the basis of the World Car Catalogue Price, 1984 is consistent with the regular procedure in this regard for the determination of the correct assessable value of such cars. The plea of the appellant for the acceptance of the invoice value declared by him is not acceptable. We notice that originally the assessable value had been declared without including the reconditioning charges as also the freight charges. The invoice value does not represent the correct assessable value and has rightly been rejected. However, we find that the quantum of depreciation allowed for a 1984 Model car imported in 1989 had not been correctly worked out and granted. The depreciation actually allowed is 46% apparently limiting it to this level on the basis of certain executive instructions which were in force at the relevant time. It was clarified by Mr. Ali, ld. JDR that the maximum quantum of depreciation allowed in respect of second hand cars at the material time was only 46% and it was only later on that the Government issued instructions that the higher quantum of depreciation which was admissible in respect of second hand machinery would also be available in respect of second hand cars. We are of the view that the subsequent instructions of the Ministry increasing the level of maximum of depreciation beyond 46% in respect of cars also can be applied for past cases. On that basis the appellants would be entitled to a higher quantum of depreciation of 52% as against 46% allowed to them by the Asstt. Collector. We direct that the assessable value of the car be re-determined allowing such depreciation. Subject to this modification, the appeal is allowed on the above terms.