Tailor-made machinery not second-hand where evidence showed manufacture for importer and only trial-run wear marks

Imported machinery was treated as new tailor-made equipment rather than second-hand goods because the invoice and manufacturer correspondence showed it was specifically manufactured for the importer, and there was no evidence of prior commercial use by another buyer. Reported wear marks and blackening on some parts were consistent with trial runs at the manufacturer's premises before shipment. On that basis, the misdeclaration allegation failed and the confiscation, redemption fine, and personal penalty were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported machinery was second-hand/used machinery or new tailor-made machinery, and whether the confiscation and penalty imposed on the basis of misdeclaration could be sustained.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the nature of the imported machinery. The examination reports noted wear marks and blackening on certain parts, but the correspondence with the foreign manufacturer and the invoice indicated that the machines were specifically manufactured for the importer in 1999. On that material, the machinery was not off-the-shelf goods but tailor-made equipment, and there was no contrary evidence to show prior commercial use by any other buyer. The signs of wear on movable parts were consistent with trial runs conducted at the manufacturer's premises before shipment.

Conclusion: The machinery was held to be new tailor-made machinery and not second-hand machinery. The confiscation, redemption fine, and personal penalty were set aside, and the appeal succeeded.

---