9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om M/s. Sato Argox India Pvt. Ltd. through High Seas Sale Agreement under Bill of Lading and on arrival of the goods at Cochin, the appellant filed the Bill of Entry No. 5475163 dated 06.03.2018 and 5623379 dated 17.03.2018 for its clearance. The Department raised the objection that the goods imported are subject to the provision of E-waste Management Rules (EMR), 2016 and due to non-production of Extended Producers (EPR) certificate, the Customs detained the goods. Thereafter, the Director of the appellant requested for re-export of the goods but without considering the provision of E-waste Management Rules, the respondent vide Order-in-Original dated 03.07.2018 confiscated the goods under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962. Thereaft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per the direction of the Hon'ble Tribunal but the Commissioner of Customs without considering the Final Order of the Tribunal in its right perspective has conducted denovo adjudication and vide impugned order, rejected the request of the appellant. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that this Tribunal vide its Final Order dated 05.11.2018 has clearly given the direction to consider the request of the appellant for amending the Bill of Entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 but the Commissioner of Customs instead o of following the direction of the Tribunal has Conducted denovo adjudication and rejected the request of the appellant to amend the Bill of Entry in favor of M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al vide its Final Order dated 05.11.2018 and has conducted a denovo adjudication which was not the spirit of the order passed by the Tribunal. It appears that the Commissioner of Customs is bent upon harassing the appellant by not accepting his request for amendment of the Bill of Entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act in spite of the fact that he has the power to amend the same. In view of this, I am of the considered view that the impugned order is not sustainable in law at all and is set aside with a direction to the Commissioner of Customs to amend the Bill of Entry as per the request of the appellant and release the goods in order to avoid demurrage and damage to the goods. The Commissioner of Customs is directed to do the needful ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
