Age of imported second-hand machinery supported by certificate and supplier records; confiscation and penalties set aside.

The age of a second-hand draw twister machine was tested against a Chartered Engineer certificate and supplier correspondence, and the later insertion of the letter of credit date alone was found insufficient to discredit the certificate without contrary enquiry or evidence from the foreign supplier. Repeated supplier references to manufacture in 1992 were treated as supporting the declared year, while a stray older-date reference was treated as general and not conclusive. Markings on individual components such as the solenoid valve and power cable did not prove the entire machine was manufactured earlier, since replacement parts were plausible. The machine was held to be less than 10 years old, confiscation and penalties were set aside, and valuation was remanded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported second-hand draw twister machine was proved to be more than 10 years old so as to justify confiscation and penalties, and whether the age shown in the Chartered Engineer certificate and supplier correspondence could be displaced by incidental references to older components.

Analysis: The machine was accompanied by a Chartered Engineer certificate stating that it was in excellent condition, had not been reconditioned, and was manufactured in 1992. The later insertion of the letter of credit date in the certificate, by itself, was held insufficient to discard the certificate in the absence of any contrary enquiry or evidence from the foreign supplier. The correspondence from the supplier repeatedly stated that the machine itself was manufactured in 1992, and a stray reference to a machine manufactured more than a decade earlier was treated as general and not conclusive. The fact that certain parts such as the solenoid valve and power cable bore 1988 markings did not establish that the entire machine was manufactured in 1988, since replacement of components in an old machine was plausible and did not disprove the declared year of manufacture.

Conclusion: The machine was held to be less than 10 years old, confiscation and penalties were set aside, and the matter was remanded only for determination of the assessable value aspect not challenged in appeal.

---