2012 (9) TMI 7 - HC - Customs

Digital Multifunction Print and Copying machines - assessee pleaded for release as not of restricted category - Held that - In respect of cases relating to which the authorised chartered engineers had not inspected the goods in question, the customs authorities concerned shall direct the inspection of such goods before they are released. Such goods may be directed to be released, on payment of the appropriate customs duty and on the fulfillment of the conditions prescribed by law - the assessee may plead for for the waiver of the detention and demurrage charges, if any - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Release of goods under Hazardous Waste Rules

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Madras involved the issue of releasing goods that were under consideration for falling under the category of 'Hazardous Waste' as per Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008. The petitioner referred to a previous order dated 27.02.2012 in a batch of writ petitions, where similar issues were dealt with, and the court had ordered the release of the goods in question. Detailed arguments were presented, and the court had directed the release of Digital Multifunction Print and Copying machines, stating that they do not fall under the restricted category of 'Hazardous Waste'. The court emphasized the importance of inspection by authorized chartered engineers for cases where goods were not inspected and directed the Customs authorities to release the goods on payment of appropriate customs duty and fulfillment of prescribed conditions. The court also allowed the petitioners to request waiver of detention and demurrage charges as per Regulation 6 of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009. The court ordered the release of goods expeditiously within a specified time limit.

The judgment further referred to subsequent orders made by the court on 11.7.2012 and 3.8.2012 in different batches of writ petitions, and based on the previous orders, directed the respondents to release the goods in question on similar terms as stated in paragraph 28 of the order dated 27.2.2012. The court emphasized the need for prompt action in releasing the goods and did not impose any costs. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed as part of the judgment. The court's decision was based on the previous orders and the interpretation of the Hazardous Waste Rules, ensuring compliance with the prescribed procedures and regulations for the release of goods under consideration.