Proof of machinery age in customs must be cogent; visual inspection alone cannot justify confiscation of second-hand imports.

Imported second-hand machinery cannot be treated as over the age limit for customs purposes unless the authorities produce reliable and cogent evidence of age. A detailed Chartered Engineer's certificate, giving machine details, serial numbers, year of manufacture and residual life, was not displaced by visual inspection or markings on component parts. On that basis, the confiscation order was unsustainable, and the declared value had to be accepted with consequential re-assessment and return of excess duty, redemption fine and penalty, if any.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported machinery was proved to be more than ten years old so as to justify confiscation under the customs law and consequential fine and penalty.

Analysis: The import was accompanied by a detailed Chartered Engineer's certificate specifying the machines, serial numbers, year of manufacture and residual life. The customs case rested mainly on visual examination, replacement of specification plates and year markings found on some electrical components. Such indicators were held insufficient to establish the age of the machinery itself, particularly when the documentary evidence supporting the declared age had not been effectively discredited.

Conclusion: The machinery was not proved to be more than ten years old, and the confiscation order was unsustainable. The appeal succeeded, with consequential re-assessment of the goods at the declared value and return of excess duty, redemption fine and penalty, if any.

Ratio Decidendi: A finding that imported second-hand machinery is over the age limit for import must rest on reliable and cogent evidence, and not merely on visual inspection or markings on component parts, when the importer's documentary evidence of age remains unshaken.

---