2011 (3) TMI 102 - AT - Customs

Confiscation - In both the cases, consignments have arrived with pre-inspection certificates from an agency authorized by DGFT authorities - As regards as the consignment, the same was declared in the Bills of Entry as waste paper . Contrary to declaration, it was found to contain materials like used diapers, used sanitary napkins, used battery cell, used leather base, broken CD with cover, coloured surgical gloves etc. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Board authorities have held that the consignments imported contained infectious materials and therefore hazardous in nature. - goods imported being contrary to what was declared are liable for confiscation Regarding penalty - Their knowledge about the consignment containing the goods different from what was declared appears to be only after the goods were examined by the customs in their presence - There is no evidence that the respondents were knowingly concerned in the supply of consignments which were different from what was declared in the Bills of Entry - Confiscation upheld - redemption fine reduced - penalty waived.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of imported goods containing hazardous materials.
2. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty on the importer.

Confiscation of Imported Goods:
The case involved two consignments declared as waste paper but found to contain hazardous materials like used diapers, sanitary napkins, and broken items. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board confirmed the presence of infectious substances. The original authority ordered confiscation under relevant customs laws, allowing redemption on payment of a fine and re-export. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation but waived the redemption fine and penalty. The Tribunal held that the goods, being contrary to the declaration, were liable for confiscation. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not address the confiscation issue, and previous decisions supported confiscation in similar cases.

Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty:
The Tribunal considered whether the importer was liable for penalty. It was established that the consignments arrived with pre-inspection certificates and were declared based on purchase orders and invoices. The importer claimed ignorance about the actual contents until customs examination. As there was no evidence of intentional misdeclaration, the Tribunal found no justification for imposing a penalty. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order, restored the original authority's decision on confiscation, reduced the redemption fine, and annulled the penalty.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the imported goods due to misdeclaration and hazardous contents. However, it found no grounds for imposing a penalty on the importer, considering the lack of evidence of intentional wrongdoing. The decision highlighted the importance of accurate declaration and the consequences of non-compliance with customs regulations.