2014 (2) TMI 170 - AT - Customs

Appellate Tribunal rules imported goods as apparatus, not hazardous waste

PATWA PHOTO STUDIO Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT)

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal ... Import of Used and Reconditioned Fuji Frontier 370 Printer Processor with Standard Accessories - Confiscation of goods - Hazardous waste - Classification of goods - Penalty u/s 112 - Held that:- Goods in question are not waste and scrap of electrical or electronic assemblies. The goods in question is ‘used and Reconditioned Fuji Frontier 370 Printer Processor with Standard Accessories'. The same is used for developing photo films as well as digital printing as per the catalogue on record therefore the impugned order whereby it has been held that the goods in question is a Hazardous Waste is not sustainable. As per the catalogue the machine in question is capable of developing films and thereafter printing the photographs as per the catalogue. The machines in question is capable of developing photo films and also capable of digital printing service and digital data processing service and same manner as the film process operation. The Revenue wants to classify the same under chapter 84 of the Tariff which covers automatic data processing machine and units thereof. The appellant before the adjudicating authority also claim the classification under heading 9010 of the Customs Tariff which covers the apparatus and equipment for photographic film. Therefore, the goods are classifiable under heading 9010 of the Customs tariff - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues: Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff, Confiscation of goods as Hazardous Waste, Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act.Classification of Goods under Customs Tariff:The appellant imported a Fuji Frontier 370 Printer Processor and claimed classification under Chapter Heading 84 of the Customs Tariff. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods, alleging they were Hazardous Waste and imposed a penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The appellant argued that the goods did not fall under Hazardous Waste as defined by the Hazardous Wastes (Management Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008. They contended that the imported item was a Digital Minilab used for developing photographic films and printing photographs, not waste or scrap. The Tribunal examined the product literature and found that the goods were apparatus and equipment for developing photographic film or paper, classifiable under heading 9010 of the Customs Tariff. The Tribunal held that the goods were not Hazardous Waste and set aside the impugned order.Confiscation as Hazardous Waste:The lower authority confiscated the goods, alleging they were Hazardous Waste based on the initial classification claim under Chapter 84 of the Customs Tariff. The Revenue argued that another importer had obtained permission for similar goods, while the appellant had not produced such permission. However, the Tribunal noted that the goods imported were not waste or scrap but a Fuji Frontier 370 Printer Processor used for developing photo films and digital printing. The Tribunal analyzed the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008, and concluded that the goods did not fall under the definition of Hazardous Waste. Therefore, the confiscation on the grounds of being Hazardous Waste was deemed unsustainable.Imposition of Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act:The appellant challenged the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act in relation to the confiscated goods. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal on the grounds of correct classification under heading 9010 of the Customs Tariff also invalidated the imposition of the penalty. By establishing that the goods were not Hazardous Waste and were properly classifiable under a different heading, the Tribunal effectively nullified the basis for imposing the penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI, comprising S S Kang and P K Jain, JJ., ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal held that the imported goods were not Hazardous Waste but apparatus and equipment for developing photographic film, classifiable under heading 9010 of the Customs Tariff. The appeal was allowed, and the confiscation of goods and penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act were overturned.