9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Violation of Rule 18 of MSIHC Rules, 1989 regarding import of hazardous chemicals; Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty; Intimation requirement to competent authority; Legal formalities compliance by importer; Appellant's lack of awareness; Stay of operation of impugned order. Violation of Rule 18 of MSIHC Rules, 1989 regarding import of hazardous chemicals: The case involved the import of Barium Nitrate Powder by the appellant, subject to the provisions of "The Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemicals Rules, 1989" (MSIHC Rules, 1989). Rule 18 of these Rules mandated that importers of hazardous goods like Barium Nitrate Powder must inform the competent authorities specified under the Rule about the import. The original authority confiscated the consignments and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the appellant for violating the provisions of the Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appeal. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty: The appellant, in the application for early hearing, argued that the only requirement for importing the goods was to provide the specified information to the competent authority within a month of import, which they claimed to have fulfilled. The appellant contended that being a first-time importer, they were unaware of the legal formalities, and there was no intention to breach any laws. The confiscation of goods deprived them of their legal right to possess and use the goods for business. Intimation requirement to competent authority and Legal formalities compliance by importer: The appellant submitted a letter to the Joint Director-General of Foreign Trade, intimating the import and the details of adjudication by the original authority. The appellant's counsel argued that the intimation required under Rule 18(2) of MSIHC Rules, 1989 was provided within the stipulated thirty days of import, thus fulfilling the legal requirement. The appellant's lack of awareness of the compliance formalities was highlighted as a factor in the case. Stay of operation of impugned order: Upon review, the Tribunal found that the appellant had indeed submitted the required intimation within the specified time frame, thereby questioning the lower authorities' decision to confiscate the goods. However, it was noted that the Rules did not specify the competent authority to receive such intimation. The Tribunal directed the appellant to take appropriate action in this regard and granted a waiver of the predeposit of penalty. The impugned order was stayed until the final disposal of the appeal, allowing the appellant to retain possession of the goods.
|
