2019 (12) TMI 1072 - HC - Customs

Confiscation - import of 'used dialysis machine' - violation of Basel No.1110 of the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules 2016 - penalty - time limitation - HELD THAT - The only restriction imposed by the learned Judge in the matter is against the appellant raising contention based on the question of limitation. Therefore, it is evident that the appellant will get an opportunity to oppose the proposal for confiscation on all the grounds available, except the question of limitation - we do not think that the appellant would have any grievance about the judgment. He will be at liberty to raise all the contention before the adjudicating authority, including the contention that the proposal itself is not maintainable on its merits. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge of confiscation of imported dialysis machine and penalty under Customs Act, procedural irregularity in not issuing a show cause notice, opportunity for appellant to object proposal for confiscation, restriction on raising contention based on limitation, stipulating a time limit for re-adjudication.

Analysis:

1. The appellant challenged the order of confiscation of a used dialysis machine imported by them, along with a penalty imposed under the Customs Act, 1962. The main contention raised was the procedural irregularity in not issuing a show cause notice and not providing an opportunity to the appellant to object to the proposal for confiscation. The Standing Counsel for the respondent conceded to this irregularity and agreed to re-adjudicate the matter after issuing a proper show cause notice. The Single Judge quashed the impugned order and directed the 2nd respondent to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner and re-adjudicate the matter after hearing the petitioner.

2. The Single Judge imposed a restriction on the appellant from raising contentions based on the question of limitation. This means that while the appellant can oppose the proposal for confiscation on all other grounds, except limitation, they are not allowed to raise grievances related to the question of limitation. The appellant is free to present all contentions before the adjudicating authority, including the argument that the proposal itself is not maintainable on its merits.

3. Upon review, the High Court found no merit in the writ appeal and dismissed it accordingly. However, the appellant's counsel requested the court to set a time limit for completing the re-adjudication process, citing that the goods under detention were lying idle indefinitely. After considering the request and hearing the Standing Counsel for the respondent, the Court directed the 2nd respondent to complete the re-adjudication as per the earlier directions within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment.

4. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of completing the re-adjudication promptly. The Court's decision aimed to ensure that the process is finalized within a reasonable time frame, providing clarity and resolution to the matter at hand.