TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>CESTAT grants stay on order in hazardous waste misdeclaration case, stresses compliance</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, TUTICORIN Versus HARBOUR PETROCHEM INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, TUTICORIN Versus HARBOUR PETROCHEM INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. - 2014 (312) E.L.T. 648 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues: Misdeclaration of imported goods; Confiscation of waste; Redemption fine and penalty imposition; Prima facie case for stay of operation of the impugned order.In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai, the issue at hand was the misdeclaration of goods imported by the respondents. The Bill of Entry described the goods as 'Mixed Plastic Scrap,' but upon examination, it was revealed that the goods were actually 'all sorts of plastic waste soaked with oil, dirt, and other grit matters.' The Tribunal noted that the goods were not covered by the permission granted for the import of plastic scrap and were considered 'restricted hazardous waste' under the Hazardous Waste Rules. The Pollution Control Board's report also recommended re-exporting the entire consignment due to the presence of non-recyclable fractions. Despite the importers' claim of obtaining permission for washing the waste for recycling, the Tribunal found this insufficient to prevent confiscation. Consequently, the Tribunal granted the Revenue's application for stay of the impugned order based on the prima facie case established (Citation: 2010 (9) TMI 1017 - CESTAT Chennai).The Tribunal emphasized that the goods were misdeclared, not aligning with the actual contents of the imported waste, which were deemed hazardous and required specific permissions for importation. The lack of necessary approvals from the Ministry of Environment and Forests for importing such waste further strengthened the case for confiscation. The Tribunal also considered the Pollution Control Board's recommendation for re-exportation due to the presence of non-recyclable fractions in the waste. Despite the importers' efforts to prepare the waste for recycling, the Tribunal found their actions insufficient to avoid confiscation, highlighting the seriousness of the misdeclaration and potential environmental risks associated with the imported waste.Overall, the judgment underscores the importance of accurate declaration of imported goods, especially when dealing with hazardous waste. It showcases the Tribunal's commitment to upholding regulations related to the importation of restricted hazardous waste and the need for strict compliance with environmental rules and permissions. The decision to grant the Revenue's application for stay reflects the Tribunal's recognition of the prima facie case presented, indicating a strong stance against misdeclaration and improper handling of hazardous materials in importation processes.
TaxTMI 