Confiscation of contaminated waste paper upheld; penalty sustained but reduced because the goods were not freely importable.

Unsorted waste paper mixed with domestic waste and other contaminants was treated as municipal waste, not freely importable goods, because customs examination showed broken glass, PET scraps, polythene bags and similar non-importable material. On that basis, confiscation was sustained under the customs and foreign trade regime. The absence of an express citation to the confiscatory provision did not vitiate the order where the violation was otherwise clearly alleged and apparent from the record. The connected penalty was also maintainable, but the facts justified reduction of the penalty amount.

---

---

Issues: Whether unsorted waste paper mixed with domestic waste and other non-importable material was liable to confiscation, and whether penalty was sustainable though the penalty required reduction on the facts.

Analysis: The cargo was found to contain unsorted waste paper mixed with domestic waste components such as broken glass, PET scraps, polythene bags and other contaminants. On the evidence of customs examination, the goods answered the description of municipal waste and were not freely importable under the relevant customs tariff and foreign trade regime. Liability to confiscation was therefore upheld. Since the notice and adjudication clearly alleged violation of the prohibition embodied in the confiscatory provision, the absence of an express citation of that provision did not vitiate the order when the contravention was otherwise apparent. As the confiscation was sustained, the connected penalty was also sustainable, though the facts justified moderation of the quantum.

Conclusion: The goods were rightly held liable to confiscation and the penalty was maintainable, but the penalty amount was reduced.

---