JUDGMENT : The only question which arises for consideration in the present cases is whether the printing press imported by the appellant had an output of 30,000 or more copies per hour. 2. The appellant in support of this claim, for availing the benefit of notification dated 19th June, 1980, relied upon a certificate which had been issued by one Mr. S.S. Doshi and also on a certificate issued by I.I.T., Madras. According to these certificates, the capability of the machine was to print more than 35,000 sheets. The Customs authorities referred the matter to the Director General of Technical Development for its report in respect thereto. In a communication dated 27th August, 1997 from the Industrial Adviser it is stated that some technical information was not supplied and according to the information of the said Industrial Adviser a simple change in the motor could not justify an increase in the capacity. 3. It is evident that no representative of Director General for Technical Development examined the machine in operation or carried out any test. Notwithstanding the fact that a communication had been sent to them time and again by the appellants to come and inspect the machines. 4. In our opinion, the representative of DGTD should have personally inspected the machine and then given their opinion with regard to the capacity of the printing press imported by the appellant. Instead of remanding the cases, we direct, the Collector of Customs to get personally inspected the machines in question and then submit a report to this Court with regard to the validity of the claim of the appellant in respect of the capacity of the imported machines. Inasmuch as the DGTD has been dismounted the Collector of Customs should get the machine in question from the representatives of the Government of India Press or Survey of India Press. The report shall also deal with the reports of Mr. Doshi and I.I.T, Madras. Needful be done and the reports submitted to this Court within four months. List thereafter.