9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JUDGEMENT M/s Worldwide Logistics Survey and Inspection Group and Affiliates has filed the present writ petition for quashing impugned Alert Circular No.01/2012-JNCH dated 16.01.2012 and order dated 5th March, 2012 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva. 2. The petitioner had earlier filed W.P (C) 631/2012, which was disposed of by this Bench on 31st January, 2012. For the sake of completeness, we are reproducing the said order in entirety:- "1. The petitioner World Wide Logistics Survey and Inspection Group and Affiliates is aggrieved by the alert circular dated 16.01.2012. In the circular it is mentioned that the petitioner had issued certificate/form of declaration/undertaking in respect of consignment which was imported into India vide bill of lading BAXSSS019014 dated 23.11.2011. 2. The petitioner had issued the pre-shipment inspection certificate in which it was declared as under:- "Declaration/undertaking 1. The consignment does not contain any type of arms, ammunition, mines shells cartridges, or any other explosive material in any form, either used or otherwise and that the consignment was checked for radiation lever and it does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding possible mis-declaration of description when examining a consignment where pre-shipment inspection certification has been issued by the petitioner. This circular does not mean that the certificate issued by the petitioner can be discarded or have to be rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order dated 24.01.2011 passed in the Writ Petition No.441/2011 titled World Wide Logistics Survey and Inspection Group and Affiliates Vs. UOI Ors. He submits in the said case following direction were issued:- "4. In view of the aforesaid, we are only inclined to hold that the circular dated 5th August, 2010 contained in Annexure P-1 shall not be treated to be stigmatic as far as the petitioner is concerned. Needless to say, it should not be treated that the petitioner has been black listed by the department. To clarify the said position, the respondents shall put it on its website." 7. The said directions were issued in view of the statement made on behalf of the respondents which is quoted in para 3 and for the sake of convenience are also reproduced as under:- "3. It is contended by Mr. Sumit Batra, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. Mukesh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner of Customs (Docks). A) No explosive found in the warehead/rocket empty cases. B) 26 empty rocket 2.75 inch (70mm) cases with one end open, 19 cases stenciling/marking fully defaced by applying back paint and remaining seven rocket empty cases written HS 1340-D-446-4095-HA14, 4-ROCKET 2.75 WARHEAD HE261 and MOTRO MK66 MOD4UNO182,LOT GD803K, 182-001, WT, 174LBS, IA2/Y87/S/03, USA/DOD/AYD." 4. Thereafter, personal hearing was given to the authorized representative of the petitioner on 29th February, 2012. The submissions made on behalf of the petitioner are recorded in paragraph 12 of the impugned order dated 5th March, 2012. In the said submissions, the petitioner had contended that the scrap identified was carrying "cases" and not "shells" of rockets, and, therefore, are not covered by the policy restriction of DGFT i.e. paragraph 2.32.1. The aforesaid contention has been rejected by the Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Nhava Sheva in the order dated 5th March, 2012, recording as under:- "M/s WLSI were also asked to respondent to their certification to the effect that the present consignment is actually metallic scrap (HMS 1 2) as per internationally accep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew Delhi and Others AIR 1978 SC 851. 7. We have examined the contentions raised by the petitioner, but are unable to agree with the same. Paragraph 2.32.1 quoted above, which is under the heading "General Procedure for Licensing of Restricted Goods" states that import of any form of metallic waste or scrap containing hazardous, toxic waste, radioactive contaminated waste, radioactive, explosive material including shells is banned. It further stipulates that live or used cartridge or any other explosive material in any form either used or otherwise is also banned. It is obvious that the intention is not to allow import of any material which was earlier used as a shell into the country as scrap because of danger and hazard involved. We may note that the petitioner, as annexure P-6, has filed Hand Book of Procedures (Vol.I) issued by the Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India. However, in Annexure P-6 one of the relevant page is missing. During the course of hearing, the missing page has been furnished by the learned counsel for the respondents. The relevant extract of the applicable clause relating to certification in the Hand Book reads as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orks, explosives or cartridges." Any distinction of the nature suggested and pleaded by the petitioner will not be possible and create difficulties for the authorities. The intention obviously is not to permit import of scrap which contains hazardous material which was earlier used and was part of an explosive device. The words "used or otherwise" mentioned in paragraph 2.32.2 clarify that no distinction should be made between used and unused material. Caution and strictness in such cases is warranted. Liberal interpretation will be counterproductive. 10. Reliance placed on the decision in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Another (supra) is also misconceived. In the Alert Circular dated 16th January, 2012 specific reference was made to the inspection and examination of the containers, which is recorded in the said circular. The impugned order dated 5th March, 2012 does not go beyond the Alert Circular. It is obvious that the petitioner was aware of the allegations against him and after hearing the petitioner, order dated 5th March, 2012 was passed. 11. We do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Cus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
