TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant imported eight Second hand Sulzer machines and filed bill of entry declaring them to be of less than ten years old and declared the value as is in the invoice as transaction value . The customs authorities were not satisfied by the declaration and sought the help of Police Forensic Science Laboratory to determine the correct date of manufacture of the imported sulzer machines. Relying on report of the forensic Science Laboratory the customs authorities came to conclusion that the machines imported were of more than ten years old and the value declared is also not correct. The appellant waived the issuance of show cause notice but attended the personal hearing before the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority come to a d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Inland container Deport Concor Kanakpura, Jaipur on 14-5-2004 to inspect the Textile looms. Customs Inspector attended us at ICD Concor. (Photo No. 1) It was stated that eight Sulzer Looms bearing Sr. Nos. 128021, 128082, 128083, 128086 to 128089 and 128094 had been imported at ICD Concor. The Sulzer Looms were found inside the containers. The container LMCU 0350770 contains two looms which have been marked 1 and 2 by us, the container LMCU043 IT 568842 contains four looms, two at the front side and two at the rear side which have been marked 5, 6, 7 and 8 respectively by us. (Photo No.2, 10 15) All the eight looms were found old used and it was stated by the Customs Officers that all the looms were manufactured in the year 1994. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... found on the machine under the plate bearing Sr. No. 128087 (marked 7). (Photo No. 20 21) No dust was found on back side of the plates. No other part of the machines could not be examined as they are inaccessible. I.O. was advised to get the looms out of containers for examination but he showed inability. Sd/- (R.K. Chturvedi) It can be seen, that, the said report does not give any categorical year of manufacture of the imported machines. Relying on such an inconclusive report would lead to miscarriage of justice. On the other hand the manufacturer of the machines in his letter dated 24th April 2004 has clarified the situation. We may read the same: Dear Sirs, We hereby declare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h that the machines imported therein could not be considered as contemporaneous imports. The NIDB data gives information about the machines that are not matching to the specifications of the machines imported by the appellant, nor does the NIDB data give the year of manufacture of the imported machinery. It is common knowledge that in the second hand market the year of manufacture makes for difference of value. Further, we also find that the NIDB data produced by the learned SDR shows the country of origin as China while the appellant has imported the machinery from Switzerland, that in itself may be reason for difference in price. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, we find that the impugned order is liable to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
