Import control compliance: undeclared machines are not accessories, and a missing Chartered Engineer certificate does not by itself justify confiscation.

Separately identifiable imported machines were treated as independent goods, not accessories of the main press, because the catalogue and record showed different manufacturers, independent functions, and no coverage under the declared licence description; confiscation of those undeclared machines was upheld. A second-hand machine could not be confiscated merely for want of a Chartered Engineer's certificate unless the licence or governing policy specifically required such a certificate. As the certificate requirement was not shown to be a licence condition and no proper inquiry had been made into the machine's description, value, or age, confiscation of the main machine was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the three undeclared machines imported along with the press were only accessories of the main machine or were separate machines liable to confiscation. (ii) Whether absence of a Chartered Engineer's certificate, in the case of a second-hand machine imported against a licence, by itself rendered the import unlawful and justified confiscation of the main machine.

Issue (i): Whether the three undeclared machines imported along with the press were only accessories of the main machine or were separate machines liable to confiscation.

Analysis: The catalogue and the factual material showed that the three machines were manufactured by different manufacturers, did not figure as standard or optional accessories of the press, and had independent functions. The import documents also did not establish that they were covered by the licence or the declared description.

Conclusion: The three machines were separate goods and not accessories of the press; the finding of confiscability was upheld against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether absence of a Chartered Engineer's certificate, in the case of a second-hand machine imported against a licence, by itself rendered the import unlawful and justified confiscation of the main machine.

Analysis: The licence did not impose a condition requiring a Chartered Engineer's certificate. The policy provision relied upon specifically required such a certificate for second-hand imports under Open General Licence, and the absence of that certificate, without more, could not automatically establish contravention of the import control law. Since the Collector had not undertaken inquiry on the machine's description, value, or age on the available evidence, the confiscation of the main machine could not be sustained on that ground alone.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the main machine was set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo consideration on the licence description and valuation.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part: the confiscation concerning the main machine was set aside and remitted for fresh decision, while the finding against the assessee regarding the undeclared allied machines was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A second-hand import covered by a licence cannot be confiscated merely because a Chartered Engineer's certificate was not produced, unless that certificate is specifically required by the governing licence or policy; separately identifiable undeclared machines are not treated as accessories merely because they were imported with the main machine.

---