9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as over. In any event, the E- waste Rules 2016 certificate had since been issued to the respondents by the Central Pollution Control Board before the goods have been cleared. As far as violation of the Bureau of Indian Standard as per Compulsory Registration Order 2012 and also the violation of Hazardous and other waste (Management Transboundry Movement) Rules, 2016 and E-waste (Management) Rules, 2016 are concerned, this Tribunal in PARAG DOMESTIC APPLIANCES, ATUL AUTOMATION PVT LTD, KETAN KAMDAR DIRECTOR VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS COCHIN-CUS [ 2017 (10) TMI 812 - CESTAT BANGALORE ] has specifically covered all the issues raised and disputed in the present appeal - It was held that the The importation of the impugned goods is in violation of Import Policy of the relevant time and also of some of the conditions of Hazardous Waste Rules 2016. The violation of Hazardous Waste Rules is with reference to country of origin certificate. The appellants in the present appeal are not disputing the enhancement of value made by the Customs on the basis of the report of the Chartered Engineer. Further, it s found that the ground of absolute confiscation has also been considered in various ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned goods under Section 111(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 for contravening the provisions of Hazardous and other wastes Rules, 2016, E-waste (Management) Rules, 2016 and the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 read with Electronics IT Goods Order 2012 as well as provisions of FTP 201520. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner and the Commissioner vide the impugned order rejected the appeal of the appellant. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that this issue has been considered by the Tribunal in large number of cases and it has been consistently held in favour of the importer. He further submitted that the Commissioner in the impugned order has held that the appellant did not possess the requisite registration with the Bureau of Indian Standard as per Compulsory Order, 2012 issued by the Ministry of Electronics IT Goods. He submitted that this finding is wrong because registration with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He further submitted that in para 12 of the impugned order the appellate authority has held that the appellants have not complied with the provisions of Hazardous and others wastes (Management and Transboundry Movement) Rules, 2016, E-Waste (Management) Rules, 2016. As per the learned counsel this finding in the impugned order is not accepted by the appellant for the reason that the Apex Court in the Civil Appeal No. 1057/2018 dated 24/01/2019 in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. M/s. Atul Automations Pvt. Ltd. has considered this issue and has ordered as follows: The Central Government had permitted the import of used MFDs with utility for at least five years keeping in mind that they were not being manufactured in the country. The Chartered Engineer commissioned by the Customs authorities had certified that the MFDs were capable of utility for the next 5 to 7 years without any major repairs. Considering that at import they had utility, the High Court rightly classified them as other wastes under Rule 3(1)(23) of the Waste Management Rules, which reads as follows: Other wastes means wastes specified in Part B and Part D of Schedule III for import or export and includes all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue of import of MFDs has been considered by various decisions passed by this Tribunal as well as the High Court and the Apex Court, in the case of Atul Automation Pvt. Ltd . and other cases relied upon by the appellant cited supra in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. As far as violation of the Bureau of Indian Standard as per Compulsory Registration Order 2012 and also the violation of Hazardous and other waste (Management Transboundry Movement) Rules, 2016 and E-waste (Management) Rules, 2016 are concerned, this Tribunal in Atul Automation vide Order No. 21592-21594/2017 dated 08/08/2017 has specifically covered all the issues raised and disputed in the present appeal. The relevant findings in the said decision are reproduced herein below: 8. On the first point regarding importation being in violation of Import Policy, the same being an admitted fact, does not require further elaboration. On the second point regarding violation of provisions of Hazardous Waste Rules, 2016, we have carefully examined the submissions of the appellants. First of all, we note that the original authority held against the appellants substantially on the ground that the product is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said rules. 11. The next condition is regarding certificate issued by inspection agency approved by DGFT regarding functionality and residual life of the goods. We note that the original authority held against the appellants regarding violations of these provisions. The present consignments which are imported for which Bills of Entry were filed in October to November 2016 are governed by the 2016 Rules which superseded the 2008 Rules. The learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the decision of Technical Review Committee under the 2016 Rules. The decision of the meeting held on 18th and 19th October 2016 recorded that the Extended Producer s Responsibility (EPR) authorisation requirement under 2016 Rules are to be produced on application to the Pollution Control Board and a time line is prescribed for the same. After considering these time lines, the Committee decided that the implementation of EPR can start from 01/05/2017 and advised the Customs authorities to permit clearance of the imported goods without EPR authorisation till 30/04/2017. 12. Regarding Schedule III Part D of the Hazardous Waste Rules, 2016, we note that the said part deal with list of other waste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s held as under: However, a perusal of the Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirements for Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012 at page 32 onwards of the paper book, brings out that although printers, plotters find a place at Sl. No. 7 8 respectively of the Schedule to the Notification, there is no reference to Multifunction Devices. Even in the Notification dt. 07/11/2014 wherein Sl. No. 16 to 30 was added to the earlier list, only Copying Machine/Duplicators have been found at Sl. No. 26. Evidently, the MFDs which is a combination of printers, scanners, copiers etc. and a separate genre of machines do not find a specific entry in the schedule to the said notification. Ld. Advocate has also drawn our attention to the order dt. 06/04/2018 of High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in WP No. 2728/2018 preferred by M/s. R.R. Marketing where inter alia, the Hon ble Court held that 2012 order would not apply to MFDs. The relevant portion of the High Court s order is reproduced as under: As regards the applicability of the Electronics and IT Goods (Requirement for Compulsory Registration) Order (CRO), 2012 , the communication dated 06/12/2016 makes it clear that only r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
