2012 (9) TMI 644 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Dismisses Revenue Appeals on Goods Release, Upholds Re-export Decision

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as infructuous, as the Commissioner (Appeals) had only set aside the adjudication order and not remanded the ... Restriction on import of hazardous waste - Revenue appeal against Commissioner (Appeals)order that the goods have not been physically examined - Held that:- In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the adjudication order therefore the ground taken by the Department that Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority is not sustainable as Commissioner (Appeals) has not remanded the matter but set aside the adjudicating order. Further, as per the directions of the Hon ble High Court, the goods have already been released to the respondents, therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue has become infructuous. Issues:1. Import of old and used digital multi-functional print and copying machines deemed hazardous waste.2. Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the adjudication order.3. Power of Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the matter.4. Goods already released as per directions of the Hon ble High Court of Madras.Analysis:1. The issue in the matter pertains to the import of old and used digital multi-functional print and copying machines, which were deemed hazardous waste by the adjudicating authority at the time of clearance. Consequently, the respondents were allowed to re-export the goods, and redemption fine and penalty were imposed. The Commissioner (Appeals) later set aside the adjudication order, citing that the goods had not been physically examined, rendering the adjudicating authority's view unsustainable. This led to the order for re-examination of the goods.2. The Revenue challenged the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, arguing that the Commissioner had no power to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority as per the Finance Act, 2001. The Revenue also relied on a previous decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in a similar case. Additionally, the Revenue contended that a challenge against the order of the Hon ble Madras High Court (Single Judge) was pending before the Division Bench, making the impugned order unsustainable.3. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents pointed out that the goods had already been released in compliance with the directions of the Hon ble High Court of Madras in specific writ petitions. This led to the argument that the appeals had become infructuous and should be dismissed.4. After considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not remanded the matter but had merely set aside the adjudicating order. Additionally, since the goods had already been released to the respondents as per the High Court's directions, the appeals filed by the Revenue were deemed infructuous. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as infructuous and disposed of the stay applications accordingly.