2017 (8) TMI 496 - AT - Customs

Confiscation - import of old and used pipes with plastic material i.e. thermally insulated with polyurethane form - Hazardous waste - Held that - In the reports submitted by the Chartered Engineer as well as CRCL, nowhere it has been concluded that the plastic material which has been imported by the appellant is hazardous waste. Moreover, no expert opinion has been obtained by the Revenue to substantiate the allegation that the said goods are hazardous in nature. Therefore, the observations made by the authorities below are based on the assumption and presumptions - there is no undertaking given by the appellant that they want to re-export the goods at their own. In fact there was no material to be accepted by the appellant at that stage that imported goods are hazardous goods, there is no question of undertaking by the appellant. The plastic material is hazardous waste is based only on assumption and presumptions, therefore the goods are not liable for confiscation and no redemption fine can be imposed on the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of imported goods as hazardous waste.
2. Confiscation and re-export of goods.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Classification of imported goods as hazardous waste
The appellant imported re-rollable scraps covered with plastic material. The authorities alleged the plastic material to be hazardous waste. A Chartered Engineer's report stated that the plastic material was recyclable and not hazardous. The Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRCL) report confirmed that the material was synthetic polymer and did not contain hazardous heavy metals. The Tribunal noted that no expert opinion was obtained by the Revenue to prove the goods were hazardous. The appellant undertook to re-export the goods, but the Tribunal found no conclusive evidence that the plastic material was hazardous waste. Citing a similar case, the Tribunal ruled that assumptions and presumptions cannot justify confiscation. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the goods were not liable for confiscation as the plastic material was not proven to be hazardous waste.

Issue 2: Confiscation and re-export of goods
The authorities below ordered the confiscation of the goods and directed re-export on payment of redemption fine. The appellant argued that the plastic material was not hazardous waste based on expert reports. The Tribunal found the authorities' decision to be based on assumptions and presumptions. Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the goods were not liable for confiscation. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order for re-export and redemption fine, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal overturned the decision to confiscate and re-export the goods, as the plastic material was not proven to be hazardous waste. The judgment emphasized the importance of expert opinions and evidence in determining the classification of imported goods.