2018 (7) TMI 792 - AT - Customs

Import of Hazardous waste - lubricate oil - re-export of goods - imposition of redemption fine and penalty - cross-examination of the chemical examiner, CRCL denied - principles of natural justice - Held that - No reply has been received till date from CRCL and without affording cross examination of chemical examiner impugned order has been passed which is in gross violation of principle of natural justice - Moreover, when the adjudicating authority, itself is in doubt with regard to the chemical examiner s report, in that circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice to grant cross examination to chemical examiner, CRCL to the appellant. After granting cross examination to chemical examiner, the adjudicating authority shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of imported goods as hazardous waste.
2. Adjudication process and violation of principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported lubricant oil, which was classified as hazardous waste by CRCL due to the presence of PAH exceeding the prescribed limit. Despite the appellant's representation claiming otherwise, the Revenue issued a show cause notice. The appellant's interim reply led to further clarification requests from CRCL, but no response was received. The adjudicating authority proceeded without affording the appellant the opportunity for cross-examination, leading to a challenge before the High Court, which directed timely adjudication. The subsequent order was upheld by the Commissioner, prompting the appeal before CESTAT Chandigarh.

2. CESTAT Chandigarh found that the adjudicating authority's failure to provide cross-examination of the chemical examiner from CRCL amounted to a violation of natural justice principles. The absence of CRCL's response despite repeated requests raised doubts about the validity of the classification as hazardous waste. In light of these procedural irregularities and the live consignment nature of the case, CESTAT Chandigarh set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority. The directive included granting the appellant the opportunity for cross-examination of the chemical examiner before reaching a final decision in accordance with the law.

This judgment highlights the importance of procedural fairness in adjudication processes involving disputed classifications of goods and underscores the necessity of providing parties with opportunities for cross-examination to ensure a just and informed decision.