9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 1154 - HC - CustomsClassification of Imported waste parings and scrap of Polyurethane - goods appear to fall under category restricted import - Challenged the seizure memorandum issued under Section 11 - HELD THAT - On going through the record it is clear that though material is Polyurethanes but not in its Primary Form. Waste scrap and parings of polyurethanes under heading CTI 39159063 falls under restricted import. Goods in question are waste parings and scrap of polyurethanes. Goods are top skin bottom skin side skin shredding and trimmings of polyurethanes foam therefore it comes within the definition of scraps waste and parings. No error has been committed by respondents in seizing the import material which comes within the category of restricted import. Thus writ petition is dismissed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Classification of Imported Goods - Primary Form or Waste/Scrap/Parings Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The classification of goods under the Customs Tariff Act (CTA) headings is critical. The petitioner declared the goods under CTH 39095000 (Polyurethane Foam in Primary Form), while the respondents classified them under CTI 39159063 (Waste, Scrap, and Parings of Polyurethane). Relevant circulars and notifications include Circular No. 22/89 dated 12.04.1989, which clarifies that polyurethane foam products such as "top skin," "bottom skin," "side skin," and "shreddings" are to be classified as waste, parings, and scraps under heading No. 39.15 of the CET. The World Customs Organization's Explanatory Notes and Public Notice No. 392 (PN) 92-97 dated 01.01.1997 further define plastic scrap/waste and manufacturing waste. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court examined the physical nature of the goods, photographs, and the CRCL lab report. The lab report confirmed the material as cut pieces of polyurethane foam but did not explicitly state the goods were waste. However, the Court emphasized that the goods were not in primary form but rather consisted of skins, trimmings, and shreddings-byproducts of manufacturing processes. These are consistent with the definitions of waste, scrap, and parings under the cited circulars and WCO notes. Key Evidence and Findings: The seizure memorandum and panchnama documented the physical examination of the goods. The CRCL test report identified the samples as polyurethane-based polymeric material with additives, in the form of cut pieces of light green spongy material. The respondents also sent a query to CRCL to clarify if the goods constituted waste, scrap, or parings; however, no reply was received. Photographic evidence supported the conclusion that the goods were manufacturing waste rather than primary form polyurethane foam. Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the classification framework and circulars to the physical nature of the goods. Since the goods were "top skin," "bottom skin," "side skin," shreddings, and trimmings, they fall squarely within the category of waste, scrap, and parings as per Circular No. 22/89 and the WCO explanatory notes. Therefore, the goods are correctly classified under CTI 39159063. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner argued that the lab report did not indicate the goods were waste and that the goods were in primary form, warranting release. The respondents countered with physical examination findings, circulars, and the absence of any contradictory lab report. The Court favored the respondents' interpretation due to the nature of the goods and authoritative clarifications. Conclusion: The Court concluded that the goods are not in primary form but constitute waste, scrap, and parings of polyurethane foam, justifying their classification under CTI 39159063. Issue 2: Legality and Justification of Seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act Relevant Legal Framework: Section 110 of the Customs Act empowers customs authorities to seize imported goods if they have a reasonable belief that the goods fall under restricted import categories or are otherwise liable for seizure under the Act. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The seizure memorandum dated 31.01.2025 was issued based on the reasonable belief formed after physical examination and corroborated by the test report and circulars. The Court found no procedural or substantive irregularity in the seizure process. The seizure was premised on the classification of the goods as restricted imports, which is a valid ground under the Customs Act. Key Evidence and Findings: The seizure memorandum, panchnama, test report, and circulars collectively supported the respondents' reasonable belief. The petitioner failed to provide evidence disproving the restricted nature of the goods. Application of Law to Facts: Given the classification of the goods as restricted imports, the seizure under Section 110 was lawful and justified. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner contended that the seizure was unwarranted due to the goods being in primary form. The Court rejected this, holding that the physical nature and classification of the goods warranted seizure. Conclusion: The seizure of the goods under Section 110 was lawful and justified. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held that:
This establishes the core principle that polyurethane foam byproducts such as skins, shreddings, and trimmings are to be classified as waste, scrap, and parings under CTI 39159063 and are subject to restricted import regulations. The Court further concluded that seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act is justified when authorities have a reasonable belief, supported by physical examination and authoritative circulars, that the imported goods fall under restricted import categories. Accordingly, the writ petition challenging the seizure was dismissed, affirming the legality of the respondents' actions and classification.
|
