ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the determination of the assessable value of the car imported by the appellant. The car, a Ford Taurus 1989 model has been assessed on the value of Rs. 1,33,497/- by the Custom House and Commissioner (Appeals) has declined to consider the appeal by the importer for reducing it.
2. Appellant contends that she purchased the car in the U.S.A. at $ 1450/-. It is certified by the dealer and Ford Motor Co. U.S.A. that the freight to be added to the price would be U.S. $ 500/- which is certified by Keymost International.
3. The Assistant Commissioner had determined the value of the car on the basis of the price of a new car and after giving the adhoc discount of 15% to compensate for difference in wholesale and retail price and giving discount. As against this it is claimed that the car should be assessed at the claimed purchase price of U.S. $ 1450/-. The appellant cites a fax from A. Smith Motors, Inc. Warner Robins, Georgia, U.S.A. This fax says that the “use car value of Ford Taurus Wagon year 1989 is $ 1450/-. It cites a series of numbers which appear to be engine and chassis number. The letter goes on to say that if its mileage is over 100,000 then the value is $ 950.00. Now this fax does not bear the signature of Ken Muller whose name appears on the space below signature and it is therefore of no value. Even otherwise it is a curious document. It does not indicate the correct purchase price of the vehicle. If it is $ 1450/-, why should it say that if the mileage exceeds 100,000 the value should be $ 950? The mileage when the car was sold is not variable and would have been known. The price at which the car was sold would have also been known. We are therefore unable to accept this letter as evidence of price and therefore of the transaction value.
4. The Assistant Commissioner had arrived at the value by depreciating the value of the new car. The car was imported in March, 1996 and the exact date of its manufacture or first purchase is not known. Therefore, it would be appropriate to give depreciation from the first quarter of 1990 till the last quarter of 1995. By applying this method the figure arrived at by the Assistant Collector do not seem incorrect and in any case have not been questioned. In the face of the consolidated invoice, the Assistant Commissioner’s decision to go by freight paid for other cars is reasonable.
5. It is next contended that freight should be taken at U.S. $ 500/- as against U.S. $ 1450/- determined by the department. The Assistant Commissioner had gone by the freight paid for other vehicles contemporaneously, imported. The appellant relies upon an invoice and Fax of Keymost International in Los Angeles the invoice dated 31-12-1995 issued to the appellant indicates that a full container consisting of “auto and personal effects” was charged at U.S. $ 4470/- and with insurance totalled $ 4,853/-. A fax from this company says that the shipping charge was $ 500/- as the car was shipped in a container with two other vehicles. Now, the invoice clearly indicates that what was provided to the appellant was one full container containing the car and personal effects. There is no explanation as to why the first invoice issued is incorrect. No evidence is also forthcoming in support of the claim that the appellant’s car was shipped together with other cars. It would have been easy to produce the invoice in question. This has not been done, are unable to interfere with the quantum arrived at. We therefore see no reason to vary the value assessed.
6. Appeal dismissed.