TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1020X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hence are clearly excluded from the said entry B-3140. Thus, the adjudicating authority is not correct to hold (as it did in para 5.20 of the impugned order) that Basel B-3140 covers all used tyres which lead to resource recovery, recycling, reclamation or direct us. Further the adjudicating authority in the said para 5.20 takes due note of the fact that goods listed in Part B do not require prior permission but comes to a finding that the impugned goods require permission of MoEF While the CPCB report is not conclusive, even if the tyres are taken to be used tyres (they admittedly are), the adjudicating authority has not disputed that they are directly usable and hence as discussed earlier, they are excluded from the scope of the said entry B-3140. Further, the impugned goods do not figure in Part A of the said Schedule-III which contains list of items requiring MoEF’s permission for import. Incidentally, it may be pertinent to state that the fact that the impugned goods are not covered under the said Part-B does not mean that their import requires prior permission of MoEF, more so because they are not covered under the said Part-A. Thus, the adjudicating authority is not righ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8,47,268/-under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 read with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. I order absolute confiscation of the goods valued at CIF ₹ 1,28,47,268/- imported vide Bills of Entry No. 2678130 2678036 both dated 11.07.2013, 2757988 dated 19.07.2013 2789242 dated 23.07.2013 under Section 111(d), (m) (o) of the Customs Act, 1962. Further, since the impugned goods have been illegally trafficked into India in contravention of the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008, hence in terms of Rule 17(2) impugned goods are ordered to be re-exported. Therefore, I refrain from giving any option to the importer M/s Jibran Overseas, 6518/24, Bara Hindu Rao, New Delhi-110006 for redemption of the said goods in terms of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. I order for the re-export of the said imported goods at the partys own cost forthwith. 5. I impose a penalty of ₹ 15,00,000 (Rupees fifteen lacs only) M/s Jibran Overseas, 6518/24, Bara Hindu Rao, New Delhi-110006 under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. The aforesaid order was passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ently making the importer liable to penalty. This point is not disputed by the importer also and therefore hardly needs further elaboration. However, we find that the impugned goods do not figure in Part A of Schedule-III of the said Rules. The said list contains the description of goods import of which requires permission from the competent authority for their import. It is also seen that Part B of Schedule-III of the said Rules does not cover the impugned goods inasmuch as it covers only such waste of pneumatic tyres which do not lead to resource, recovery, re-cycling or direct reuse. The impugned tyres without any doubt are directly reusable and hence are clearly excluded from the said entry B-3140. Thus, the adjudicating authority is not correct to hold (as it did in para 5.20 of the impugned order) that Basel B-3140 covers all used tyres which lead to resource recovery, recycling, reclamation or direct us. Further the adjudicating authority in the said para 5.20 takes due note of the fact that goods listed in Part B do not require prior permission but comes to a finding that the impugned goods require permission of MoEF in the following words: I also observe that though ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s are taken to be used tyres (they admittedly are), the adjudicating authority has not disputed that they are directly usable and hence as discussed earlier, they are excluded from the scope of the said entry B-3140. Further, the impugned goods do not figure in Part A of the said Schedule-III which contains list of items requiring MoEF s permission for import. Incidentally, it may be pertinent to state that the fact that the impugned goods are not covered under the said Part-B does not mean that their import requires prior permission of MoEF, more so because they are not covered under the said Part-A. Thus, the adjudicating authority is not right in holding that the impugned tyres required permission of MoEF for import and therefore absolute confiscation ordered on that count is unsustainable. 8. We have seen the bills of entry (e.g. B/E No. F-015 dt. 05.02.2015, F-036 dt. 24.02.2012 etc. of Mudra Custom House) under which old and used tyres have been cleared without permission of Ministry of Environment and Forest, on redemption fine and penalty for having been imported without licence because they were not freely importable by virtue of the fact that CIF value per tyre was les ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
