9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1069X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Customs House agent M/s Nipun Impex. The Invoice Number LG-E-2011-12-01 dated 01.12.2011 was also been annexed, but nowhere the description of the goods imported was declared as old and used. However, while conducting examination of the goods by the import shed officers on 06.02.2012, the goods were found to be old and used, whereafter the consignment was put on hold and was not allowed clearance. 2. A chartered engineer's opinion was sought regarding the condition of the goods who, vide his report and on the reasons mentioned in the report, observed the goods to be old and used with reconditioning/changing of some parts. 3. Since the goods imported were opined to be old and used picture tubes, thus, were suspected to form under the cat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d may not be confiscated under Section 111 of Customs Act for contravening the provision of Section 46 of the Act, also, why the penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act shall not be imposed upon him. 8. After affording him the opportunity of being heard, the Additional Commissioner of Customs vide its order dated 26.04.2013 had ordered absolute confiscation of the goods valued at Rs. 11,92,927.33/-, and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The said order was appealed before Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) by order dated 17.06.2013. The confiscation was upheld. However, the goods were allowed for re-export within one month of receipt of order against redemption fine of Rs. 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cated. 11. After hearing these arguments and perusing the entire record of this appeal, my observations and findings are as follows: (i) While passing the order under challenge, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) has relied upon CBRC Circular No. 27/2011-Customs with Customs dated 04.07.2011. Perusal of these circulars shows that it has made mandatory for all the Commissionerates to examine the imported old and used second hand goods and to check the compliance of Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Trans-boundary) Rules, 2008. (ii) Rule 14 of the said Rules says that the old electronic assembles, if meant for reuse, can only be imported with the permission of Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF). Rule 17(I) of the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r could not produce any such compliance or permission, nor could produce any license for the import of the subject goods. The goods have been opined by the MoEF as hazardous e-waste, and such goods have rightly been held as prohibited goods under Section 110 of the Customs Act, and as such, there seems no infirmity or illegality in ordering the absolute confiscation of the said goods. I draw support from the case Dilip Malhotra vs. Commissioner of Customs, 2018 (359) ELT 226 (Tri.-Mumbai). 12. Now, coming to the aspect of the penalty as imposed upon the appellant, I am of the considered view that fines and penalties imposed by the original authorities, unless and until there is any aberrant reason to observe element of unreasonableness or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
