Hazardous chemical import intimation within 30 days defeats confiscation for alleged delay and supports interim stay relief.

Rule 18(2) of the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemicals Rules, 1989 requires the importer to furnish specified particulars to the concerned authority at the time of import or within 30 days thereafter. Where the record showed intimation was given within that period, confiscation for alleged delayed intimation was not sustainable at the interim stage. On that prima facie view, the penalty was based on a wrong application of the rule, and waiver of pre-deposit with stay of the impugned order was warranted pending appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported hazardous chemical was liable to confiscation for alleged non-compliance with the intimation requirement under Rule 18(2) of the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemicals Rules, 1989, and whether pre-deposit of penalty should be waived and the impugned order stayed pending appeal.

Analysis: Rule 18(2) requires the importer of hazardous chemicals to furnish specified particulars to the concerned authority at the time of import or within thirty days from the date of import. The record showed that intimation had been given within thirty days of import, and therefore the confiscation order founded on alleged delay in intimation did not appear to be in accordance with law. On that prima facie view, the penalty arose from a wrong application of the rule, justifying interim relief.

Conclusion: The confiscation was not sustainable at the interim stage on the ground of delayed intimation, and waiver of pre-deposit together with stay of the impugned order was warranted in favour of the appellant.

---