9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1693X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al No. C/188/2008-CU(DB), dated 21-1-2015 [2015 (321) E.L.T. 325 (Tri. - Del.)]. 2. The appellant herein imported goods vide Bill of Entry No. 587/06, dated 16-6-2006 for clearance of 98.848 M.T. of mixed paper waste. The subject goods were examined, in the presence of the authorized representative of the Customs House Agent (CHA), which revealed the net weight to be 96.65 M.T. out of which 19.83 M.T. was used plastic waste, and the remaining 76.82 M.T. was used paper collected as road sweepings. 3. The plastic content, in the imported mixed paper waste consignment, was neither declared by the appellant in the Bill of Entry, nor did they submit any licence issued by the office of the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d sweepings" was confiscated under sub-section (m) of Section 111 of the Customs Act. 5. In the order under appeal, the Tribunal observed that, since import of plastic waste was contrary to the conditions of import thereof, it was liable for confiscation; as a consequence thereof used paper, collected as road sweepings, was also liable for confiscation under Section 119 of the Customs Act, namely, the goods used for concealing the smuggled goods, i.e. used plastic waste; Clause 7 of the contract with the suppliers provided for final load port quality inspection on seller's account by survey or as mutually agreed upon; the contract stipulated for pre-shipment inspection, of the goods imported, to ascertain whether they were as per the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d paper waste collected as roads sweepings. Section 119 of the Customs Act stipulates that any goods, used for concealing the smuggled goods, shall also be liable for confiscation; and since a huge quantity of 19.83 M.T. of used plastic was imported, without declaring such import in the Bill of Entry and without obtaining clearance from the DGFT, the authorities had rightly held that the appellant had used the imported goods (used paper waste) to conceal smuggled goods (i.e. used plastic waste). 9. The submission of Mr. Rahul Consul, Learned Counsel for the appellant, that it is the exporter who is responsible, and the appellant who had imported the goods bona fide cannot be subjected to fine and penalty, as he was unaware that the go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
