Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2020 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 166 - HC - CustomsClassification of imported goods - goods are old and used rubber tyres reusable as tyres or are old and used rubber tyres scrap being in pressed baled form? - it is contended that petitioner has misinterpreted the description of import items by saying that pressed baled would mean that the tyres are scrap - HELD THAT:- Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India had issued officer memorandum dated 29th November, 2019 granting permission/no objection to the petitioner for import of 10,000 MT of old and used rubber tyres scrap (multiple cuts/pressed baled/shredded) for manufacturing of crumb rubber. Also, Directorate General of Foreign Trade, Government of India had issued import/export licence (authorisation) dated 28th November, 2019 to the petitioner for importing certain restricted items which has been described as old and used tyres scrap (multiple cuts/pressed baled/shredded). It is evident that seizure of goods is not an end in itself. Goods can only be seized if the proper officer has reason to believe that such goods are liable to confiscation. Further more, seizure cannot also be for an indefinite period. Timeline is provided in sub section (2) of section 110. In case of confiscation, the statute has provided for the requisite procedural safeguards in section 124. As a pragmatic measure, provisional release of seized goods pending adjudication is provided in section 110A. Having regard to the dispute raised and the statutory framework in place, we feel that it may not be proper for the writ court to step in at this stage to render a finding as to whether the seized goods are old and used rubber tyres scrap in pressed baled form or rubber tyre in reusable form; in other words, whether the imported goods fall under the customs tariff heading of 4004000 or under the heading of 4012, which will basically be a finding of fact. Therefore, we are of the view that this aspect should be best left to the adjudicating authority to decide, if it requires adjudication. Pre-empting an adjudication on this issue by the writ court by taking a view one way or the other may not be justified. While respondents have stated that getting the goods examined by a Chartered Engineer is a well established departmental procedure, it is also a well established departmental procedure that in the case of seizure samples are drawn and then sent for testing in accredited laboratory/laboratories. We see no harm in acceding to such a request of the petitioner. Rather it will only facilitate a fair investigation and consequently fair adjudication. Petition disposed off.
|