(1.) THE appellants had imported four "Second -hand Shutteless Picanol Rapier Weaving UN Looms width 240 CM" with all its accessories, valued at US 42,850 (CIF) and declared to have been manufactured in the year 1994. They filed a Bill of Entry on 3.6.2003 for clearance of the goods under OGL. A certificate from an overseas Chartered Engineer was produced in support of the declared value and year of make. On examination of the goods, the year 1990 was found on the frame of the machines, whereupon a local Chartered Engineer, Sri Joseph Jebaraj was called upon to inspect the machines and submit a report. After inspection, the Chartered Engineer reported that the machine could have been in use for about 9 years. He also estimated the value of the goods at US 76,000. The goods were subsequently got examined by M/s.SGS India Pvt. Ltd. at the instance of the department and the said Chartered Engineers reported the value of the goods at US 65,900. The year of make was certified to be 1990. Once again, the Customs authorities obtained a report from Sri Joseph Jebaraj on the year of make. This time, he opined that the machines could be considered to have been manufactured in the year 1990. Meanwhile, the assessee waived SCN and wanted the dispute to be settled forthwith. Ld.Commissioner accepted the value reported by Sri Joseph Jebaraj in his first report and the year of make reported by him in his second report, and proceeded to dispose of the case. Having found that the machines were more than 10 years old and that the same had been imported without any specific licence, learned Commissioner ordered confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act with option for redemption against payment of fine of Rs. 5.25 lakhs. He rejected the transaction value and enhanced the value of the goods in terms of the report of the Chartered Engineer, Sri Joseph Jebaraj. A penalty was also imposed on the importer. Hence the present appeal of the importer.
(2.) AFTER examining the records and hearing both sides, we find that learned Commissioner has not stated any specific reason for rejecting the overseas Chartered Engineer's certificate produced by the assessee. Further, he has relied on inspection reports of local Chartered Engineers behind the back of the importer. Amongst the records, we have seen a letter dated 4.8.2003 of the Superintendent (Adj.) in the office of the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, addressed to the appellants. This letter indicates that copies of the following documents relied upon by the Commissioner for passing the impugned order were issued to the assessee only after the impugned order was passed :
(3.) THE impugned order is set aside and this appeal is allowed by way of remand. Ld.Commissioner of Customs is directed to pass a fresh order of adjudication after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.