HINDUSTAN RUBBERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very short issue is involved in the present appeal. The dispute relates to the age of imported, used and second -hand conveyor belts curing line. The clearance of the said goods was sought by the appellants in terms of para 5.3 of Exim Policy read with para 5.4 of ITC hand -book on the basis that the goods were less than ten years old. in support of their contention that the age of the machine in question is less than 10 years and the same is of 1992 make, the appellants produced the supplier's invoice as also an independent Chartered Engineer's certificate.

(2.) AS against the above, the Commissioner has relied upon the examination report given by the machinery experts of the department for holding that the machine was more than 10 years old and in fact was manufactured in the year 1963. The above report refers to the fact that tally plate fixed on the motor was replaced with a new plate engraved with the year of manufacture as 1992, whereas the original plate underneath shown the year of manufacture as 1963. It was also noticed that the original tally plate on the main machine was painted to cover the actual year of manufacture indicated therein. Accordingly, the Commissioner confiscated the goods with an option to the appellants to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 12 lakhs and also imposed personal penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

(3.) AFTER hearing both sides duly represented by Shri Neerav T. Mainkar, Advocate and Shri R.B. Pardeshi, J D.R. we find that the suppliers invoices indicated the goods to be of 1992 origin. In addition, the appellants had admittedly produced a certificate from the independent Chartered Engineer's certifying the year of manufacture of the machinery as 1992. The genuineness or correctness of the said certificate has not been doubted or disputed by the Commissioner. As such, without rebutting the above evidence produced by the appellants, the Commissioner has accepted the department's report that as the year of manufacture as shown in the motor was of 1963, the machine is more than 10 years old. The appellants have rightly argued that the year of manufacture found on a very small components of the whole machinery i.e. a motor by itself does not lead to inevitable conclusion that the entire machinery was manufactured in the year 1963. The earlier installed motor might have been replaced on account of any breakdown with the old motor of 1963 make. There is no independent expert opinion availed by the revenue on the said disputed issue. As such, going by the year of manufacture indicated on the motor, in our views, to establish the age of the machinery is not safe evidence, especially when the Chartered Engineer's certificate has not been rebutted by the department.