2007 (10) TMI 110

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....filed bills of bill of entry for the clearance of the same.  The appellant claimed that the clearance of the goods under freely importable category in terms of para 5.1 of the ITC Policy 1997-2002. The bills of entry was assessed, under second check appraisement basis on the strength of the declarations made by the appellant.  At the time of examination of the goods in the docks the said machinery was found to be old and used and not brand new as declared.  The examination report indicated that the machinery was old and used and thoroughly re-conditioned.  The said examination report was challenged by the importer and the machinery was re-examined second time.  The second examination report also concluded that the m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lso submitted that since the machinery was of worth Rs.1.40 crores, the said machines were put to trial runs at the manufacturer's premises and hence the heater etc. were found to be used.  He submits that the correspondence with the original manufacturer itself shows that the machinery was manufactured for the appellant only.  3. Ld. Jt. C.D.R appearing on behalf of the revenue submits that the appellant had not contested both the examination reports.  He submits that the examination report clearly indicated that the working device of the machinery like sprocket and chains, levers and operating mechanisms were showing appreciable signs of wear marks.  He also submits that the items like burners, heater burners, fusio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nce "Second hand goods" in para 5.3 of EXIM Policy, party's contention is that goods have been bought directly from manufacturer and therefore they are not second hand and therefore not hit by para 5.3 of EXIM Policy. On a plain reading of the above reproduced findings of the adjudicating authority, we find that the adjudicating authority has not considered the factual matrix this case.  It is seen from the records that the appellant had placed an order with the manufacturer of machinery in the month of May, 1999.  The said correspondence very indicate that the machinery is tailor made.  This has not been disputed by the revenue any where. If a machinery is a tailor made machinery, and is not available off the shelf, then ....