2018 (11) TMI 1759 - AT - Customs

Re-export of confiscated goods - redemption fine - penalty - import of printers - EPR for printers as applicable as per the E-waste (Management) Rules, 2015 issued vide Notification dated 23-3-2016 by Min. of Environment and Forest, not produced by the importer - import in violation of E-waste Management Rules, 2016 - permission for amendment of consignee in import documents - request of the appellant has not yet been considered by the concerned officer on the ground that he does not have the power to consider such request. HELD THAT - The appellant purchased the goods vide High Seas Sale Agreement and filed the Bill of Entry but on perusal of the Bill of Entry, the Department found that there is a requirement of EPR certificate and is mandatory but the appellant did not furnish that certificate and in the absence of that certificate, the goods were confiscated and released in favour of the appellant for the purpose of re-export on payment of redemption fine and penalty. Further, in the meantime, the supplier of the goods got the EPR authorization from the CPCB and thereafter the appellant approached the Commissioner for amending the Bill of Entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act under which the respondent is empowered to amend the Bill of Entry - Further it is found that when the original importer has produced the EPR authorization even in August 2018, then the Commissioner should have considered the request of the appellant for amendment of the Bill of Entry in the name of M/s. Sato Argox India Pvt. Ltd. and should have cleared the goods so as to avoid demurrage and damage to the goods. Further, as per Section 149 of the Customs Act, Customs officer may in his discretion authorize any document, after it has been presented in the Customs House to be amended; provided that no amendment of a Bill of Entry or shipping bill or bill of export shall be so authorized to be amended after the imported goods have been cleared for home consumption or deposited in a warehouse, or the export goods have been exported, except on the basis of documentary evidence which was in existence at the time the goods were cleared, deposited or exported, as the case may be. Therefore it is clear that under Section 149, the respondent has power to amend the Bill of Entry and connected documents as requested by the appellant. But in the present case, imposition of redemption fine and penalty of ₹ 4 lakhs and ₹ 50,000/- respectively appears to be on higher side, the same is therefore reduced. Request of the appellant under Section 149 of the Customs Act - HELD THAT - The concerned officer has not taken any decision on the request of the appellant as well as on the request of the original supplier. Since the goods are suffering demurrage and damage, in the interest of justice, the Department is directed to consider the request of the appellant to amend the Bill of Entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods for re-export and imposition of redemption fine and penalty under Customs Act.
2. Violation of E-waste Management Rules, 2016.
3. Request for amendment of Bill of Entry under Section 149 of Customs Act.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against an order confiscating goods for re-export and imposing a redemption fine of ?4 lakhs and a penalty of ?50,000 under the Customs Act. The appellant had imported barcode printers, scanners, and other items without the required EPR certificate. The goods were found to be in violation of E-waste Management Rules, 2016. The appellant sought permission for re-export after realizing the non-compliance. The supplier later obtained the necessary EPR certificate. The Tribunal found the redemption fine and penalty to be excessive and reduced them to ?2 lakhs and ?25,000 respectively. The Commissioner was directed to consider amending the Bill of Entry within two weeks to prevent demurrage and damage to the goods.

2. The appellant argued that they were unaware of the EPR certificate requirement at the time of import due to the newness of the goods. They promptly sought permission for re-export upon learning of the violation. The supplier eventually obtained the EPR certificate. The appellant and the supplier both requested the amendment of the Bill of Entry to rectify the situation. The Tribunal noted that under Section 149 of the Customs Act, the officer has the authority to amend the Bill of Entry based on existing documentary evidence. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of compliance with E-waste Management Rules and the power of Customs officers to confiscate goods for non-compliance.

3. The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and the records. It acknowledged the steps taken by the appellant upon discovering the violation and the subsequent actions of the supplier to obtain the necessary EPR certificate. The Tribunal found that the redemption fine and penalty imposed were excessive and reduced them to ensure the ends of justice. It directed the Customs Department to promptly consider the requests for amending the Bill of Entry to prevent further delays and damage to the goods. The appeal was disposed of with the revised fines and penalties, emphasizing the importance of compliance with Customs regulations and environmental laws.

Conclusion:
The judgment highlighted the significance of compliance with Customs regulations and environmental laws, emphasizing the authority of Customs officers to confiscate goods for non-compliance. The Tribunal reduced the redemption fine and penalty, directing the Customs Department to promptly consider amending the Bill of Entry to prevent further delays and damage to the goods.