2017 (7) TMI 271 - AT - Customs

Import of restricted item - used tyres of various sizes - Department took a view that the goods though would fall under the category of Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary) Rules, as such permission from Ministry of Environment & Forest is required for such goods which was not produced - confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - Held that - the very identical issue has been decided in the case of Al-Noor Exports & Imports Vs. Commissioner of Customs 2017 (6) TMI 840 - CESTAT CHENNAI , where it was held that condition that tyres must have a BIS certification except for tyres imported by Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM), this requirement is restricted only to newly manufactured tyres and are not applicable to used tyres - imported goods cannot be treated as hazardous waste - the clearance of goods shall be allowed for home consumption however on payment of redemption fine under section 125 ibid and penalty under section 112(a) ibid which is reduced to 15% and 10% of assessed value respectively - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Import of used tyres without permission from Ministry of Environment & Forest.
2. Confiscation of goods under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Imposition of penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. The issue in this case revolved around the import of goods declared as used tyres without the necessary permission from the Ministry of Environment & Forest. The Department contended that the goods fell under the category of Hazardous Waste Rules, requiring specific permission for importation. The goods were confiscated under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option for redemption only for re-export upon payment of a redemption fine under section 125. Additionally, a penalty of ?2,00,000 was imposed on the importer under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel pointed out a similar case decided in their favor by the Division Bench of the Tribunal. The counsel argued that the facts of the present case were identical to the previous case, where the Tribunal had ruled in favor of the appellant.

3. The Tribunal examined the facts of the appeal and noted the similarities with the previous case where the issue had been decided in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal referenced specific portions of the earlier order, emphasizing that the import of used tyres required a specific license, which had not been produced by the appellant. The Tribunal found no fault with the lower authorities' decision to hold the goods liable for confiscation and penal action.

4. The Tribunal further analyzed the Hazardous Waste Rules and the nature of the imported goods. It was established that the imported tyres were capable of direct reuse, as certified by a Chartered Engineer and the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. Based on this certification, the Tribunal concluded that the imported goods did not fall under the category of hazardous waste, exempting them from the requirement of MOEF permission for importation.

5. Considering the discussions and precedents cited, the Tribunal ruled that the imported tyres were used tyres capable of direct reuse, not classified as hazardous waste. The clearance of goods was allowed for home consumption upon payment of a reduced redemption fine under section 125 and penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

6. In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal by allowing the clearance of goods for home consumption upon payment of the redemption fine, penalty, and applicable duties and charges. The decision was based on the findings that the imported goods were not hazardous waste and were eligible for clearance under specified conditions.