Full Judgment
2. The appellant was posted on 14-1-1986 as First Secretary in the Embassy of India, Venezuella. He served there till 16-2-1989 and returned to Delhi on 10-3-1989. He placed an invoice dated 25-11-1989 for the import of HONDA Civil Sedan (Reconditioned) 1300cc car with air-conditioner and the price quoted in the invoice was US $ 3050 CIF Bombay. The import was to be made from M/s. Nagoya Used Car Export Association, Nagoya, Japan. He filed the Certificate dated 17-3-1989 from the Export Association certifying the receipt of money. The car was originally registered in 1982 and again registered on 30-8-1989. He obtained a customs clearance Permit No. 3078772, dated 2-5-1989. The car was shipped on 7-12-1989. The appellant filed a bill of Entry dated 9-4-1990 declaring the price of the car at US $ 3050. The Assistant Collector rejected the invoice value. On appeal, the Collector confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector. Hence, the appeal before us.
3. The Collector while rejecting the invoice [value] observed that in this case the invoice is not for the price in normal wholesale trade and hence, [the] same cannot be taken as assessable value. While holding as above, he relied upon the price of (sic.) world car catalogue for the year 1981. While adopting the price indicated in the world car catalogue, he gave depreciation & other incidental allowances.
4. The main contention of the appellants is that the car is imported under an invoice and the Collector has not doubted the genuineness of the invoice value. Having not doubted the genuineness of the invoice value, he ought to have accepted the value under (sic.) the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The Collector has taken into account the value of a car namely HONDA Civil 1300cc in the world car catalogue which is (sic.) relevant in so far as the imported car is concerned.
4A. The world car catalogue on which the Collector relied upon does not contain the value of the particular model which is imported. Further when once the transaction value is available, the Collector cannot rely on world car catalogue that too for the year 1981 and for a different model. Therefore, the order of the Collector is liable to be set aside.
5. Shri Jain hearing for the Department reiterated the order of the Collector.
6. The Collector while enhancing the value relied upon the world car catalogue 1981 on the ground that the world car catalogue for the year 1982 is not available. The Collector has also not doubted the genuineness of the transaction value. The model referred to in the world car catalogue of 1981 is different from the car which is imported under dispute. Since the Collector has not doubted the genuineness of the transaction value and since there is no other comparable import of similar goods or identical goods, the Collector ought to have accepted the transaction value. The world car catalogue of 1981 is irrelevant as the model is different and the year also is different. Therefore, the order of the Collector is set aside and the appeal is allowed and the authorities below are directed to reassess the car on the basis of the transaction value. The appeal is, thus, allowed by remand.