Customs valuation of imported machinery: CIF price in the contract and invoice governs where no contrary evidence discredits the supplier's clarification.

For customs valuation of imported machinery, the total price stated in the contract and commercial invoice was treated as the governing assessable value where those documents consistently reflected a CIF price, even though individual machine prices were shown as FOB. The foreign supplier's clarification explaining the discrepancy between the two expressions was accepted because no contrary evidence was produced to discredit the invoice value. The assessable value was therefore required to be taken as CIF, and the importer's contention succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for assessment of the imported goods, the price disclosed in the contract and commercial invoice was to be treated as CIF value or FOB value.

Analysis: The contract showed individual machine prices as FOB, but the total price of the machinery supplied by the foreign supplier was stated as CIF, Calcutta, and the commercial invoice also reflected the same CIF value. No evidence was produced to discredit the invoice value. The clarification from the foreign supplier could not be discarded merely as an afterthought when it explained the discrepancy between the two expressions used in the contract.

Conclusion: The assessable value was required to be taken as CIF, and the appellant's contention was accepted.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the contract and commercial invoice consistently show the total price as CIF, that value governs assessment, and a clarification from the foreign supplier cannot be rejected as an afterthought without contrary evidence.

---