2001 (4) TMI 683 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of the age of the imported "Calendering Line" machine.
2. Compliance with customs regulations regarding the age of imported machinery.
3. Lack of disclosure of expert opinions to the Appellants.
4. Violation of procedural fairness in the adjudication process.

Analysis:

1. The primary issue in this appeal was to ascertain whether the "Calendering Line" machine imported by M/s. Kapson Polycoats (India) Pvt. Ltd. was less than 10 years old. The Appellant claimed the machine was from 1996, supported by a Chartered Engineer's Certificate. They had abandoned the consignment due to demurrages but later expressed willingness to accept it, subject to reasonable treatment by Customs.

2. The Appellant's advocate argued that the machine's age was certified by a Chartered Engineer as 1996, and they were willing to pay duty based on a 10% increase in the declared value. However, the Department contended that the machine appeared older than declared during the initial examination, and the Chairman of the Appellant's Company admitted a violation of the EXIM Policy by importing a machine over 10 years old.

3. The Department did not disclose expert opinions from M/s. Savita Industries and the Federation of Indian Textile Engineering Industry to the Appellants, leading to a lack of transparency in the adjudication process. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of informing the Appellants of all material used against them and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision with proper disclosure and a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing.

4. The Tribunal found that the impugned Order was passed without issuing a show cause notice or hearing the Appellants in person, even though they had waived the hearing. Despite the waiver, the Appellants should have been informed of the evidence used against them. The lack of disclosure of expert opinions and procedural fairness led to the setting aside of the Order and a remand for a fair adjudication process, including the disclosure of relied-upon material and a chance for the Appellants to present their case effectively. The Appellants were also directed to cooperate with any re-examination deemed necessary by the Department.