2006 (8) TMI 476

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hri R.B. Pardeshi, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - A very short issue is involved in the present appeal. The dispute relates to the age of imported, used and second-hand conveyor belts curing line. The clearance of the said goods was sought by the appellants in terms of para 5.3 of Exim Policy read with para 5.4 of ITC hand-book on the basis that the good....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....painted to cover the actual year of manufacture indicated therein. Accordingly, the Commissioner confiscated the goods with an option to the appellants to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 12 lakhs and also imposed personal penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri Neerav T. Mainkar, Advocat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sion that the entire machinery was manufactured in the year 1963. The earlier installed motor might have been replaced on account of any breakdown with the old motor of 1963 make. There is no independent expert opinion availed by the revenue on the said disputed issue. As such, going by the year of manufacture indicated on the motor, in our views, to establish the age of the machinery is not safe ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he importer is not doubted, the same cannot be rejected by the revenue on the basis of another expert certificate. One opinion cannot be rejected on the basis of the other opinion unless sufficient independent reasons exist to reject the former. The said decision was appealed against by the Commissioner of Customs before the Supreme Court, which did not entertain the appeal and dismissed the same.....