ORDER 1. Two questions arise for determination in these appeals. They are as follows: (a) Whether photocopying machines, during the relevant period, were "freely importable" or whether their import needed import licence under the Foreign Trade Policy (FIP) as it stood at the material time? (b) Whether the Department was right in invoking Rule lO-A of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 (CVR)? Answer to Question (a) 2. The matter is squarely covered by our decision in Atul Commodities (P) Ltd. v. Commr. of Customs in favour of the importer. Accordingly, we hold that the subject goods were freely importable during the relevant period. Accordingly, we answer the first question in favour of the assessee and against the Department. Our findings on Question (b) 3. The goods were examined in the first instance in the presence of the Chartered Engineers. Vide report dated 7-10-2004 the Chartered Engineers stated that the overall condition of the photocopying machines tallied with the suppliers invoice. They have further stated that the machines were old b and obsolete. They have further stated that the said photocopying machines were non-functional without modified circuitries to suit the Indian Standard Electrical Regulation. Suffice it to state that the report has not been accepted by the adjudicating authority. 4. There is no material on record (except the information from the website) to enhance the value. The year of manufacture is not available. The year of comparable imports as alleged is not available. The website information is in respect of some other model of photocopying machines. In the circumstances, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, Question (b) is also answered in favour of the assessee (s) and against the Department. 5. Accordingly, the civil appeals filed by the Department stand dismissed with no order as to costs.