Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2019 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1472 - HC - CustomsEffective implementation of the Rules - Electronic waste (e-waste) - E-waste (Management) Rules, 2016 - Whether non-production of Extended Producer Responsibility - Authorisation under the Rules at the time of import of the goods is a sufficient ground for confiscation of the goods under the Customs Act, 1962? - HELD THAT:- The printers imported by the company were prohibited goods within the meaning of Section 2(33) of the Act as they were goods for which EPR-Authorisation was required under the Rules. Therefore, the customs authority had the power to confiscate them. In the instant case, the company had requested the Commissioner to grant permission for re-export of the goods and exercised the option to redeem the goods for that purpose. Therefore, the Commissioner imposed a redemption fine of ₹ 4,00,000/- on the company to enable it to re-export the goods. The Tribunal has reduced the amount of redemption fine to ₹ 2,00,000/-. We find no sufficient ground to further reduce the amount of redemption fine. Imposition of penalty - HELD THAT:- Section 112(a) of the Act provides that any person, who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111, shall be liable to pay penalty not exceeding the value of the goods or ₹ 5,000/-, which is greater. Mens rea is not an essential element/ingredient to impose penalty, unless the language of the statute indicates the need to establish the same - The Tribunal has reduced the penalty from ₹ 50,000/- to ₹ 25,000/-. There is no sufficient ground to further reduce the amount of penalty. Thus, non-production of EPR-Authorisation under the Rules at the time of import of the goods constitutes sufficient ground for confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of the Act - appeal dismissed.
|