9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccording to the appellant, it had imported three printing presses from Sweden during the period 1986-1987 each of which had an output of more than 30,000 copies per hour. The Customs authorities issued three show cause notices to the appellant in respect of each of the three machines. The show cause notices are substantial similar and it would sufficient for our purpose to merely consider the first show cause notice which is undated but issued presumably some time prior to August, 1987. The show cause notice stated that the customs authorities had obtained information to the effect that the rated speed of the printing machines imported by the appellant was only 25,000 copies per hour and the supplier's catalogues submitted by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Customs authorities. The appellant, in addition to the catalogue issued by the Swedish manufacturer in respect of its machines imported to India, also submitted the certificate of two independent technical experts to the effect that the machines were capable of an output of more than 36,000 copies per hour. The experts included a Professor of IIT Department of Electrical Engineering, Madras. 4.The Customs authorities originally referred the matter to the Director General of Technical Development (DGTD) for verification and a trial run. The DGTD did not carry out the inspection on the ground that they required to have further details. 5.The Commissioner decided against the appellant by holding that the certificate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e electrical drive of a model or lower output without changing any other specifications, the machines are capable of giving higher outputs does not carry conviction". 6.The plea of the appellant to have the actual performance of the machines tested was rejected on the ground that customs officer could not be deputed to every nook and corner of the country for satisfying themselves as to the performance of the machines. 7.An order was accordingly passed confiscating the machines under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. A redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh per machine was imposed. The appellant was also called upon to pay the differential duty forthwith. Penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was found that some of the prints were not clear. This factual report must be assessed in the light of the fact that the machines were being inspected more than 15 years after they were imported. 10.This appeal must, however, be allowed on the short ground that the respondent authorities have taken an inconsistent stand. From the narration of the facts it is clear that the Commissioner had proceeded on the basis of the capacity of the imported machines and not their actual production. The show cause notice had also been issued on this basis. The Tribunal, on the other hand, has categorically rejected the "capacity test" and has come to the conclusion that the capacity was irrelevant. It held that the interpretat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
