1996 (4) TMI 265 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of EXIM Policy regarding import of used lubricating oil.
2. Determination of whether the imported goods constitute hazardous waste.
3. Validity of the contract entered into before the import prohibition.
4. Application of redemption fine and personal penalties.

Interpretation of EXIM Policy:
The appeal involved a dispute over the interpretation of the EXIM Policy regarding the import of used lubricating oil without an import license. The appellants claimed the goods were not hazardous waste and should be cleared under OGL Item, while the department contended that the goods fell under hazardous waste as per the Policy provisions.

Classification of Imported Goods:
The main contention revolved around whether the imported used oil constituted hazardous waste as defined in the Hazardous Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989. The department argued that waste oil and oil emulsions were considered hazardous waste, and there was no distinction between used oil and waste oil under the Policy provisions.

Validity of Contract and Import Prohibition:
The issue of the validity of the contract entered into before the import prohibition was also raised. The appellants claimed they had a confirmed contract before the prohibition date, thus protected under transitory provisions. However, the department argued that there was no evidence of a firm contract before the policy amendment date.

Application of Redemption Fine and Penalties:
The judgment also addressed the application of redemption fine and personal penalties. The appellants requested a reduction in the redemption fine and penalties due to being first-time importers and believing they were protected under the Policy. The Tribunal reduced the redemption fine but maintained the penalties, considering the appellants' knowledge of the policy amendment.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the order of confiscation, considering the imported goods as unauthorized and not covered under the Open General License. The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the redemption fine and penalties.