2014 (1) TMI 428 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of goods - Order of re export - Contravention of provisions of Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 - Held that - goods have already been released as per the order of Hon ble High Court. Further, Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order after following the order of the High Court and directed the respondent to follow the procedure to get the goods examined in the presence of the appellant. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Commissioner (Appeals) - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Common issue involving stay petitions and appeals regarding confiscation of goods under Customs Act, 1962 for contravention of Hazardous Waste Rules.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal considered the common issue in the applications related to the confiscation of goods declared as "Used and Old Digital Multifunction Print and Copying Machines" under the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent had filed Bills of Entry for clearance, but the adjudicating authority confiscated the goods citing a violation of Hazardous Waste Rules, 2008. The authority ordered re-export at the respondent's expense without examining the goods.

2. The respondent moved the High Court seeking provisional release and examination of the goods. The High Court, in a batch matter, determined that the imported machines did not fall under the category of hazardous waste as per the relevant rules. The High Court directed the customs authorities to release the goods after inspection by chartered engineers and payment of appropriate customs duty.

3. The Tribunal noted that the goods had already been released in compliance with the High Court's order. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order and instructed the respondent to follow procedures for examination in the presence of authorities. The Commissioner's decision aligned with the High Court's directive.

4. The Revenue, represented by the Assistant Revenue, contested the Commissioner's authority to remand the matter and mentioned a pending writ appeal against the High Court's order. However, the Tribunal observed that the goods had been released as per the High Court's order, and the Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly followed the High Court's direction. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, rejecting both appeals and disposing of the stay applications.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the legal proceedings, the High Court's directive, the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, and the Tribunal's final ruling, providing a detailed overview of the issues involved and the resolution reached in the case.