9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Importation of second-hand tyre-making machinery under EXIM Policy 1997-2002, determination of machinery's age, confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, imposition of penalty under Section 112(a), acceptance of foreign expert's certificate, proper examination of evidence, mens rea, relevance of case laws. Analysis: The case involved the importation of second-hand tyre-making machinery under the EXIM Policy 1997-2002, where the appellants claimed the machinery was less than 10 years old. The Customs authorities disputed this claim, proposing confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and a penalty under Section 112(a) due to the absence of a special import license or permit. The appellants presented a certificate from a US expert certifying the machinery's year of manufacture as 1993-94, but the Commissioner rejected this evidence, relying on a departmental officer's inspection report stating the machinery was over 10 years old. The Commissioner confiscated the goods with an option for redemption on payment of a fine and imposed a penalty. The appeal challenged these decisions. Upon hearing both sides, the Customs authorities' findings were contested by the appellants' counsel, arguing that the expert's certificate was not properly considered, and redemption fine and penalty were unwarranted without evidence of mens rea. Citing case laws, the counsel emphasized the importance of accepting the foreign expert's certificate in the absence of contrary documentary evidence from the department. The Judicial Department Representative (JDR) supported the Commissioner's findings. The Member examined the submissions and case laws cited, particularly referencing a previous case where a Chartered Engineer's certificate was accepted in the absence of independent documentary evidence. The Member noted that the Commissioner did not adequately consider the foreign expert's certificate and failed to provide reasons for rejecting it in favor of the departmental report. Highlighting the visual nature of both inspections, the Member held that the Commissioner's order lacked reasoning for accepting one report over the other. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand for the Commissioner to re-adjudicate the issues, allowing the appellants to present fresh evidence for consideration. In conclusion, the judgment emphasized the importance of proper examination of evidence, adherence to legal principles, and providing reasoned decisions in matters of confiscation and penalties under the Customs Act, directing a fresh adjudication by the Commissioner in light of the principles of natural justice.
|
