DAILY THANTHI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A notification was issued on 19.06.1980 by which an exemption was granted u/s. 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 of customs duty in excess of 25% ad valorem payable in respect of the import of various items designed for use in the printing industry. Among the items specified in the table to the notification, Serial No. 1 refers to Web-fed high-speed letter press rotary and Web-fed offset rotary printing machines having 30,000 or more copies per hour.

(2.) According to the appellant, it had imported three printing presses from Sweden during the period 1986-87 each of which had an output of more than 30,000 copies per hour. The Customs Authorities issued three show-cause notices to the appellant in respect of each of the three machines. The show-cause notices are substantially similar and it would be sufficient for our purpose to merely consider the first show-cause notice which is undated but issued presumably sometime prior to August 1987. The show-cause notice stated that the Customs Authorities had obtained information to the effect that the rated speed of the printing machines imported by the appellant was only 25,000 copies per hour and the supplier's catalogues submitted by the appellant were manipulated to show that the machine could produce 36,000 copies per hour. The show-cause notice went on to state that the machines imported by the appellant had a running capacity of 25,000 copies per hour on the basis of (a) British Printer Data Guide, (b) p. 35 of the magazine Printing Work, and (c) the Swedish manufacturer's original catalogue. The three documents, according to the show-cause notice, showed that the model of the machine imported by the appellant was capable of producing only 25,000 copies per hour at top-rated speed. The notice which was issued by the Deputy Collector of Customs, alleged that the speed of the appellant's machine being only 25,000 revolutions per hour and not 36,000 revolutions as claimed by the appellant, the benefit of the notification was not available to it. It was proposed to confiscate the machines and to impose the tariff rate of duty on the appellant.

(3.) The appellant replied to the show-cause notice by making available whatever documents were with it as supplied by the manufacturer. It was stated that before the import of the machines, they had been tested by the appellant in Sweden and that the import was effected only after it was certified that the machines were capable of an output of more than 35,000 copies per hour. It was also stated that the appellant was prepared to demonstrate before the Customs Authorities the actual performance of the machines. This offer was not taken up by the Customs Authorities. The appellant, in addition to the catalogue issued by the Swedish manufacturer in respect of its machines imported to India, also submitted the certificate of two independent technical experts to the effect that the machines were capable of an output of more than 36,000 copies per hour. The experts included a Professor of IIT Department of Electrical Engineering, Madras.