9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I and, in adjudication thereof, the original authority found the goods to be hazardous-waste and confiscated the same in terms of Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act read with the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 (the Hazardous Wastes (MHTM) Rules, 2008, for short) and also read with Section 11 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 but allowed redemption of the goods against payment of fine of Rs.1 lakh subject to further condition that the goods on redemption be re-exported under Rule 17 of the Hazardous Wastes (MHTM) Rules, 2008 to the country of origin. The adjudicating authority also imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/- on the respondent under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the party preferred an appeal to the Commissioner(Appeals) and the latter passed the impugned order wherein (a) the goods in question were held not to be hazardous waste and hence not liable to be re-exported; (b) the confiscation of the goods was upheld with an order for its release for home consumption on payment of appropriate duty and redemption fine of Rs.1 lakh and (c) the penalty of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artered Engineers report, a show-cause notice was issued to the respondent by the DRI and, in adjudication thereof, the original authority found the goods to be hazardous-waste and confiscated the same in terms of Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act read with the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 (the Hazardous Wastes (MHTM) Rules, 2008, for short) and also read with Section 11 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 but allowed redemption of the goods against payment of fine of Rs.1 lakh subject to further condition that the goods on redemption be re-exported under Rule 17 of the Hazardous Wastes (MHTM) Rules, 2008 to the country of origin. The adjudicating authority also imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/- on the respondent under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the party preferred an appeal to the Commissioner(Appeals) and the latter passed the impugned order wherein (a) the goods in question were held not to be hazardous waste and hence not liable to be re-exported; (b) the confiscation of the goods was upheld with an order for its release for home consumption on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he proceedings before me. These procedures, including scrutiny for compliance with other laws of the country, are required to be completed by the proper officer in view of the above order setting aside the limited order of the original authority. 6. We have perused the records and carefully considered the submissions of both sides. 7. It is not in dispute that the subject goods being restricted items required specific import licence. The respondents admittedly did not have such licence and, therefore, all the goods were liable to be confiscated in terms of Section 111(e) of the Customs Act. In all the cases, the original authority rightly ordered confiscation of the goods with option for redemption against payment of fine. However, that authority, on the basis of its own views and without any evidentiary support, held that the imported goods were hazardous waste within the meaning of the provisions of the Hazardous Wastes (MHTM) Rules, 2008 and, on this basis, directed that the goods be redeemed and re-exported. The appellate authority, in all cases barring the case of M/s. Ace Digital Systems, rightly held that there was no basis whatsoever for holding the view that e-waste shou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ardous waste is required to be prevented. The authorities below have laboured hard to use the Chartered Engineer's certificate and the apprehension expressed thereunder to treat the consignments as hazardous waste under the relevant Rules but such an exercise done by them cannot be approved as no competent authority has examined and held the consignment to be falling in the category of hazardous waste. 10. The impugned computer systems imported are lying in the customs area for nearly a year and has not caused any hazard or danger to anyone so far. The same also cannot be considered as waste electrical and electronic assembly etc. described in Basel B1110 category under Part B of Schedule - III to the Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transfer Movement) Rules, 2008 as in the form imported, the impugned goods are only used computer systems. Further, it is nobody's case that these goods imported from Australia, US and Korea are being sent to India deliberately for dumping the same as hazardous waste when the appellant-importers have paid nearly Rs. 41 lakhs through banking channels for the same and they are also prepared to pay the applicable duty and other charges as leviab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
