2013 (10) TMI 243 - AT - Customs

Stay application against the order of commissioner (Appeals) in favor of assessee - Import of DSR camera with lens - e-Waste or not - Held that - used cameras were imported for own use of the respondent in a working condition as evident from the letter of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. In view of that, prima facie, we find that there is no reason for stay of operation of the impugned order - Stay denied.

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay application filed by Revenue for operation of impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) regarding confiscation of imported cameras under Customs Act, 1962 and e-Waste Rules 2011.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a stay application filed by the Revenue concerning the confiscation of imported cameras under the Customs Act, 1962 and e-Waste Rules 2011. The original authority had confiscated the cameras and allowed redemption only for re-export upon payment of a fine. The Commissioner (Appeals) subsequently set aside the adjudication order, leading to the Revenue filing the stay application.

The Revenue argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) based the decision on a letter from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board not presented before the adjudicating authority. Additionally, the Revenue contended that the cameras fell under a specific entry in the schedule, requiring a certificate from the Environment Ministry as per a circular issued in relation to earlier Rules 2008. The Revenue claimed a violation of the said Rules. On the other hand, the advocate for the respondent supported the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision based on a Chartered Engineer's certificate and the letter from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.

Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the imported cameras were for the respondent's own use, in working condition as confirmed by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board's letter. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there was no apparent reason for granting a stay on the operation of the impugned order. Therefore, the stay application filed by the Revenue was rejected.

In summary, the Tribunal denied the Revenue's stay application, emphasizing that the imported cameras were for the respondent's own use and in working condition, as supported by the evidence provided. The decision was based on a thorough evaluation of the arguments presented by both parties and a careful consideration of the relevant rules and certificates involved in the case.