PerGowri Shankar: M/s Rakesh Press, New Delhi imported ore Solana 425 of four colour offset press, and claimed clearance in the Bombay Customs House under the provisions of Open General Licence of the Import Policy. The customs authorities after examination of the machine, we are of the view that value declared of Rs. 2,01,365/- of the machine was too law and having regard to these similar machines imported by the importers proposed .that the value should be Rs. 3,75,000/-, that the provisions Open General Licence was also proposed to be denied to the machine on the ground that it was more than 10 years old. A show cause notice was issued to the Press.

2. After hearing the appellant, the Additional Collector of Customs held that the assessable value of the machine should be enhanced to Rs. 3,00,000/- but extended the benefit of the O.G.L. This appeal is against that order enhancing the value.

3. We have heard Sh. N.C. Sogani, Consultant for the appellant and Sh. A.K. Singhal, JDR for the Collector.

4. Sh. Sogani 's argument is that the show cause notice does not disclose the material to sustain enhancing the value. The Chartered Engineer's Certificate for the machine indicated that it was manufactured in the year 1973 and had been reconditioned. It had a residual life from 10 to 12 years. This has been compared with another similar machine imported by the India Offset, New Delhi. That machine was, however, manufactured in 1975 and import was from a different country, the United Kingdom. Sh. Sogani emphasised that the Chartered Engineer would give estimate the value of the machine based upon the market conditions in the country where the goods were examined. The comparison that had been made by the Addl. Collector between the machine imported by the appellant and another machine Solana 225, two colour offset printing machines imported by M/s Hansraj Gupta and Sons was not correct for the reason that machine of two different types could not be compared. The two colour machines may be the smaller in size and capacity but would fetch a larger price for the reasons that there was far greater demand in the local market at the relevant time. Sh. Sogani also relied upon the order of the Central Board of Customs in the letter No. F/493/124/86-Cus-VI dt. 19.11.1987. He said that if the value of the machines was depreciated in accordance with the principles contained in this letter, it would amount to Rs. 1,84,800/- less than the value actually declared by the appellant. He cited the decisions of this Tribunal in 1985 (20) ELT-358,1985 (21) ELT-140 and 1994 (72) ELT-124.

5. Sh. A.K. Singhal, Id. JDR supports the order of Addl. Collector claiming that it was the best judgment of his assessment. .

6. The appellant's claimed that the comparison cannot be made between two second hand machines of different years of manufacture and coming from different countries, and between two machines of different models or specifications, for the purpose of valuation has to be admitted. Comparison between the four colour machine imported by the appellant and two colour machines imported by M/s Hansraj Gupta and Sons is not fair. As the Consultant points out the demand for two colour machines might have been greater than for four colour machines. The show cause notice does not disclose the age and conditions of the machine. It is perfectly possible that a well preserved re-conditioned two colour machine may have a higher value than a four colour machine of not such good quality. This comparison is not valid. Comparison between a machine imported from U.K. and another from Sweden is also not valid for the reason that market conditions at the two machines might have been different leading to a higher value. The point that ^s the appellant made before the Additional Collector, that it got a good price by the manufacturers of the machines because they were trying to market four colour machines which they sold at cheap price, such machines having been instock w