2015 (10) TMI 202 - AT - Customs

Re-determination of value of goods Appellant firm imported consignment of 60 Tonnes of used Aircraft Tyres however it was proposed that imported tyres should be ordered for re-export and to enhance declared value Penalty on Firm as well as on Proprietor was imposed Adjudicating authority rejected assessable value and re-determined value of imported tyres and also confiscated imported goods Held that - Appellant contended that subject imported goods can be used for fitting in Animal Driven Vehicles Appellant should be given opportunity to place evidences in support of their contention that imported goods can be used for fitting in ADV and other materials Matter to be re-examined by Adjudicating authority in light of materials placed including valuation of goods Therefore impugned order set aside Matter remanded to Adjudicating authority to decide afresh Decided partly in favour of Appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Valuation of imported goods and imposition of penalties.
2. Applicability of imported goods for Animal Driven Vehicles (ADV).
3. Consideration of hazardous waste classification.
4. Lack of comments from State Pollution Control Board.
5. Opportunity to present evidence supporting intended use of imported goods.
6. Re-examination of the matter by Adjudicating authority.

Valuation and Penalties:
The case involved the import of used Aircraft Tyres, leading to a dispute over the valuation and penalties imposed by the Adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the redemption fine and penalties, which was challenged by the Appellant. The Tribunal considered a previous case involving used Motor Vehicle Tyres and emphasized the need for a detailed examination of whether the imported goods could be used for Animal Driven Vehicles (ADV).

Applicability for ADV:
The Appellant argued that the imported Aircraft Tyres could be used for ADV, supported by a report from the Indian Rubber Manufacturers Research Association (IRMRA). The Adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) contended that the goods were hazardous waste and not suitable for ADV, based on the IRMRA report. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the Appellant to present evidence supporting the intended use of the goods.

Hazardous Waste Classification:
The Commissioner (Appeals) referred to the Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary) Rules, 2008, and highlighted the absence of comments from the State Pollution Control Board. The Tribunal stressed the importance of considering whether the imported goods could be used for ADV and directed the Adjudicating authority to allow the Appellant to provide further evidence in support of their claim.

Re-examination by Adjudicating Authority:
In light of the arguments presented, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating authority for a fresh decision. The Tribunal clarified that the decision was made without expressing any opinion on the merits, emphasizing a fair re-examination of the case. The Adjudicating authority was directed to expedite the process due to the prolonged duration of the case.

Overall, the judgment focused on the valuation of imported goods, their intended use for ADV, classification as hazardous waste, and the need for further evidence to support the Appellant's claims. The case was remanded for a thorough re-examination by the Adjudicating authority, ensuring a fair consideration of all relevant factors.