Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the imported second-hand machine was over ten years old and therefore not freely importable under the EXIM Policy, and whether the confiscation, penalty, and redemption fine required interference.
Analysis: The machine itself did not bear any year of manufacture. Two integral components of the machine bore manufacturing years of 1988 and 1989, which made the chartered engineer's certificate stating 1993 unsupported by the record. On these facts, the finding that the machine was more than ten years old and therefore imported contrary to the policy permitting free import only of second-hand capital goods not more than ten years old was upheld. The confiscation and penalty were therefore sustained, but the appellants being actual users of the machine, the redemption fine was considered excessive and was reduced.
Conclusion: The import was held impermissible and the confiscation and penalty were maintained, while the redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 5 lakhs.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the merits, with only limited relief granted by reducing the redemption fine.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the material on record disproves the declared age of a second-hand capital good and shows it to be beyond the permissible import age under the policy, confiscation and penalty are sustainable, though redemption fine may be moderated on the facts.