Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2013 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 318 - AT - CustomsImport of Second hand personal computers / laptops - whether Hazardous electronic waste confiscation u/s 111(d) Redemption fine penalty u/s 112(a) and 114AA Held that - Any re-export was not warranted and the assesses can redeem the goods on payment of appropriate duty of customs and the fine determined by the lower appellate authority - they should pay the penalty imposed on them computer systems imported were lying in the customs area for nearly a year and had not caused any hazard or danger to anyone so far - The same also cannot be considered as waste electrical and electronic assembly - The assesses being traders had imported the used computer systems for the purpose of trading at a profit since these were available at cheaper rates abroad having become obsolete there but still had use in a developing country market Similar imports earlier made by the assesses as well as others and such imports had been regularly allowed without treating such used computer systems as hazardous waste. Second hand personal computers / laptops cannot be freely imported under the Foreign Trade Policy - the assesses were willing to pay reasonable amounts of fine and penalty for such imports as had been done in the past - goods cannot be considered as hazardous waste - orders are set aside and all the four appeals were remanded to the original authority for the limited purpose of re-adjudicating the cases for violation of Foreign Trade Policy and for allowing clearance on payment of applicable duty and reasonable amounts of fine and penalty to be determined by him Confiscation order sustained Redemption allowed after submission of fine Penalty sustained decided partly in favor of assesse.
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported secondhand computers and photocopiers as hazardous waste. 2. Requirement of specific import license for restricted items. 3. Validity of confiscation orders and penalties imposed. 4. Conditions for redemption and re-export of goods. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Classification of Imported Secondhand Computers and Photocopiers as Hazardous Waste: In all four appeals, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) intercepted consignments of secondhand computers and photocopiers, suspecting them to be hazardous electronic waste. Chartered Engineers examined the goods and certified them as e-waste. The original authority, based on these reports, classified the goods as hazardous waste under the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008, and ordered their confiscation with a condition for redemption and re-export. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the goods were not hazardous waste, referencing the Tribunal's decision in the case of Shivam International & others Vs. CC, Chennai, which stated that only what is categorized and certified as hazardous waste by a competent authority can be treated as such. The appellate authority concluded that there was no basis to consider e-waste necessarily as hazardous waste, and thus, re-export was not warranted. 2. Requirement of Specific Import License for Restricted Items: The Tribunal noted that the subject goods being restricted items required a specific import license, which the respondents did not possess. Consequently, the goods were liable to be confiscated under Section 111(e) of the Customs Act. The original authority rightly ordered the confiscation of the goods with an option for redemption against payment of a fine. 3. Validity of Confiscation Orders and Penalties Imposed: The original authority imposed penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation but allowed the goods to be released for home consumption on payment of appropriate duty and redemption fine. The penalties imposed were also sustained. The Tribunal affirmed the appellate authority's view, dismissing the first three appeals (M/s. Divine International Ltd., M/s. Deccan Enterprises, and M/s. Asian Copiers) and sustaining the penalties imposed. 4. Conditions for Redemption and Re-export of Goods: The original orders required the goods to be re-exported upon redemption. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal found no legal basis for mandatory re-export, allowing the goods to be cleared for home consumption upon payment of duty and fines. In the case of M/s. Ace Digital Systems, the Tribunal set aside the appellate order and aligned it with the other three cases, allowing home consumption clearance upon payment of fine and duty, and sustaining the penalty. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the confiscation orders with an option for redemption and payment of fines, but allowed the goods to be cleared for home consumption, rejecting the mandatory re-export condition. The penalties imposed by the original authority were sustained across all cases. The Tribunal's decision was consistent with the precedent set in the Shivam International case, emphasizing that only certified hazardous waste can be treated as such under the relevant rules.
|