9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (2) TMI 442 - AT - CustomsWaste and Scrap - It was also reported that the import of hazardous waste without prior permission of the Government amounted to illegal traffic under Rule 15 of the said Rules and hence the material should be shipped back to the exporting country or disposed of in terms of Rule 15(2) of the said Rules. The importer, in a letter dated 10-11-08, requested for release of the HMS and agreed to re-export the hazardous waste at their cost. They also waived show-cause notice and personal hearing, and requested for early decision. They also agreed to pay fine, penalty and duty. Held that - confiscation under section 111(d) sustainable as hazardous plastic scrap import prohibited. HMS not prohibited and not liable for confiscation. Redemption fine of Rs. 50,000 appropriate. Plastic scrap not deliberately imported and penalty reduced to Rs. 50,000.
Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods under Customs Act. 2. Imposition of fine, penalty, and duty. 3. Appeal against Commissioner's decision. 4. Justification for confiscation. 5. Application of penal provisions. 6. Quantum of redemption fine. 7. Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. Analysis: Issue 1: Confiscation of goods under Customs Act The appellant imported a consignment declared as 'Heavy Melting Scrap' (HMS) from Kuwait, which was found to contain hazardous plastic waste along with the declared goods. The Customs authorities invoked various provisions including Section 119, Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, and the Hazardous Waste Rules, leading to the confiscation of the entire consignment. The Tribunal found that there was no justification for confiscating the HMS as nothing was concealed, and the hazardous waste was a negligible quantity. The Commissioner's decision to confiscate the HMS was set aside, while the confiscation of the hazardous waste was upheld under Section 111(d) of the Act. Issue 2: Imposition of fine, penalty, and duty The Commissioner imposed a fine, penalty, and duty on the importer. The Tribunal considered the quantum of the redemption fine disproportionately high since it was determined in lieu of confiscating the entire consignment. The Tribunal reduced the redemption fine to a nominal amount of Rs. 50,000 for the hazardous waste. Additionally, a penalty of Rs. 2.00 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act was imposed on the importer, which was reduced to Rs. 50,000 considering the circumstances of the case. Issue 3: Appeal against Commissioner's decision The importer appealed against the Commissioner's decision to confiscate the consignment and impose fines and penalties. The Tribunal, after hearing submissions from both parties, modified the Commissioner's order by setting aside the confiscation of HMS, reducing the redemption fine for the hazardous waste, and lowering the penalty imposed on the importer. Conclusion The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the hazardous waste under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act but set aside the confiscation of the HMS. The redemption fine for the hazardous waste was reduced to Rs. 50,000, and the penalty under Section 112(a) was also reduced to the same amount. With these modifications, the Commissioner's order was sustained, and the appeal was disposed of.
|
