2017 (10) TMI 713 - AT - Customs

Confiscation - penalty - import of Irony Aluminium Scrap - it was alleged that the importer attempted to import hazardons plastic and other waste materials by mis-declaring the cargo as Irony Aluminium scrap, thereby violating the provisions of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 - Held that - as per the report of the TNPCB some extraneous plastic items were found in the consignment. There is nothing in the said report to reflect upon the quantum of such waste materials, neither is there any observation by the said authorities so as to arrive at the conclusion that the goods imported by the appellants are hazardous - Nobody would import plastic carry bags or used seals, electronic waste etc., which is much cheaper material in a consignment of iron and aluminum. The presence of municipal waste in the cargo could be the result of heavy rains in the region thus exposing the containers to flood like situation. The said fact is beyond the control of the assessee and cannot lead to confiscation of the goods or for imposition of any penalty upon them. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Misdeclaration of imported goods as Irony Aluminium Scrap.
2. Confiscation of goods under Customs Act, 1962.
3. Violation of Hazardous Waste Rules.
4. Appeal against the order of confiscation and re-export.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Misdeclaration of imported goods as Irony Aluminium Scrap
The appellant imported goods declared as Irony Aluminium Scrap, but upon inspection, it was found to contain plastic and other waste materials. The TNPCB reported objectionable odour and the presence of municipal solid waste, indicating misdeclaration and violation of the Environment Protection Act, 1986.

Issue 2: Confiscation of goods under Customs Act, 1962
The Lower Appellate Authority (LAA) confiscated the imported goods and ordered re-export based on the misdeclaration and violation of hazardous waste rules. The appellant contended that the presence of impurities in scrap imports is normal and requested re-inspection, which was denied.

Issue 3: Violation of Hazardous Waste Rules
The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation order citing the TNPCB report confirming the presence of plastic materials, breaching the Hazardous Waste Rules. The appellant argued that the quantity of waste materials was not specified and suggested heavy rains might have introduced municipal waste into the containers.

Issue 4: Appeal against the order of confiscation and re-export
The Tribunal analyzed the TNPCB report and found no conclusive evidence of hazardous waste in the consignment. They noted the possibility of municipal waste due to heavy rains, exonerating the appellant from intentional violation. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, overturning the confiscation order and re-export directive due to lack of substantial evidence of intentional violation and hazardous waste presence. The misdeclaration and presence of waste materials were attributed to external factors beyond the appellant's control, leading to the decision to allow the appeal.