Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2008 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (11) TMI 267 - HC - CustomsImport of unsorted scrap of waste paper, heavily contaminated with municipal waste/garbage attracting the classification of 'municipal waste' and 'hazardous waste'- confiscation under the Customs Act - whether appellant should not be directed to re-export the goods at their own risk, costs and consequences thereon? - why penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 112 of the Customs Act? Held that:- Pursuant to the consent given by all the counsel in the matter, the learned single Judge has passed the order dated 21-9-2007 and thereafter pursuant to the directions of the learned single Judge, the Central Pollution Control Board examined the cargo on 7-11-2007 and have submitted a report dated 16-11-2007, recommending that the cargo contains highly hazardous substances and disposal of the same in any manner will lead to pollution and that the cargo has to be re-exported to the country of its origin. Having already accepted to constitution of such an expert body before the learned single Judge, the appellant is estopped from challenging the said order passed by the learned single Judge now. On a careful perusal of the entire materials on record, we are not able to find any illegality or irregularity in the recommendations made by the Expert Body i.e. the Central Pollution Control Board, to re-export the hazardous goods to the country of its origin and the Customs officials, accepting the recommendations of the Expert Body, have issued the consequential order, directing the appellant to re-export the so-called cargo to the country of its origin. Therefore, there are no merits in both the above writ petitions and accordingly, they are liable to be dismissed along with the writ Appeal. 8th respondent/Central Pollution Control Board, Bangalore, are directed to take all steps to de-stuff the cargo from the containers of the first respondent at the cost and expenditure of the appellant and see that the first respondent re-exports the cargo to the seventh respondent himself that is the country of origin
|