2015 (8) TMI 190 - AT - Customs

Import of prohibited goods - Misdeclaration of goods - Hazardous goods - whether the goods can be redeemed on the basis of the report of Chartered Engineer which states that the items in question appears to be non hazardous in nature or not - Held that - Waste contain irregular shape material, appearing in shape of scull and lumps shaped slag having ferrous material mixed with impurities like floor dust, stone, sand, dirt, etc.. Also held that these slags and sculls appears to be non hazardous in nature. In fact, the Chartered Engineer has not done any chemical test on the goods in question and he has given his expert opinion. Revenue has accepted the Chartered Engineer report in parts holding that it appears to be containing sculls and slags but never accepted the part of the report that these slags appears to be non hazardous in nature. In fact, report is to be accepted in toto and not in parts. If revenue want to say that these slags appears to be non hazardous in nature is a vague report then the observation by the Chartered Engineer that these waste contain irregular shape material appearing in shape of scull and lump is also vague. Further, the scull and slags are not prohibited items. - If item in question is restricted item, same can be allowed to be imported on payment of redemption fine and penalty. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against modification of order for re-export of goods due to mis-declaration and hazardous nature of items.

Analysis:
The appellant imported Heavy melting scrap in August 2013, which was found to have slags and sculls. A Chartered Engineer report confirmed the irregular shape material with ferrous material mixed with impurities. The Adjudicating Authority held the goods were mis-declared and confiscated them, allowing redemption on payment of a fine and imposing a penalty. The Revenue appealed, arguing the items were hazardous and prohibited goods. The Ld. Commissioner (A) agreed, directing re-export of the goods. The appellant contended that the items were restricted, not prohibited, citing judicial pronouncements supporting redemption on payment of fines.

The key issue was whether the goods could be redeemed based on the Chartered Engineer's report stating the items appeared non-hazardous. The Tribunal noted the report's visual examination and expert opinion, emphasizing that the report should be accepted in full. It highlighted that the items were restricted, not prohibited, citing judicial precedents allowing redemption on payment of fines for restricted items. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order for re-export and reinstated the Adjudicating Authority's decision, allowing redemption on payment of fines.

The Tribunal's decision was based on the distinction between restricted and prohibited goods, emphasizing that the items in question were restricted and could be redeemed on payment of fines. By following judicial pronouncements and accepting the Chartered Engineer's report, the Tribunal concluded that the goods could be imported on payment of redemption fine and penalty. The decision clarified the nature of the goods and upheld the appellant's right to redeem them, overturning the order for re-export.