is absent in the report of the Chartered Engineer. This apart, we do not find any good reason even by the Original Authority or even the Commissioner (Appeals) as to the rejection of Load Port Chartered Engineer’s certificate and the non-mentioning of year of manufacture alone has been treated as fatal. Even the Board’s circular dt. 12.02.2008 mentioned the guidelines at para-8 about the contents of Load Port Chartered Engineer certificate but however, it concludes that in the absence of proper Load Port Certificate, a local Chartered Engineer’s certificate may be accepted, which indicates that the authorities should hold that such a Load Port Certificate was not in order or was improper and only then, could they obtain the local Chartered Engineer’s certificate. Hence, we are of the view that redetermination of the declared value of the imported second hand machinery by rejecting the declared value is clearly untenable because from a reading of both the Order-inOriginal as well as Order-in-Appeal, it is clear that what is rejected is only the declared value and not the local Chartered Engineer’s certificate. Hence, we are of the view that the redetermination of declared value based solely on local Chartered Engineer’s certificate is not in order and in this regard, our view stands supported by the decision/order
