E-waste authorisation compliance supports confiscation, with redemption fine and penalty upheld without proof of mens rea.

Import of printers without the required Extended Producer Responsibility authorisation under the E-waste (Management) Rules, 2016 was treated as import contrary to a restriction under another law, making the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The importer was regarded as a producer obliged to obtain EPR authorisation, and the absence of that authorisation at import was sufficient for confiscation. After confiscation, redemption fine under Section 125 was only a statutory mitigation, so no further reduction was warranted on the facts. Penalty under Section 112(a) was also sustained because the provision does not expressly require proof of mens rea, and the reduced penalty was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether non-production of Extended Producer Responsibility authorisation under the E-waste (Management) Rules, 2016 at the time of import of printers is a sufficient ground for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) whether the redemption fine imposed for re-export called for further reduction; and (iii) whether penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 required interference for want of mens rea.

Issue (i): Whether non-production of Extended Producer Responsibility authorisation under the E-waste (Management) Rules, 2016 at the time of import of printers is a sufficient ground for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The imported printers fell within the category of equipment governed by Schedule I of the E-waste (Management) Rules, 2016. The importer, though not expressly named in Rule 2, was treated as a "producer" under Rule 3(cc) because it imported electrical and electronic equipment for sale, and Rule 13(1) required such producer to obtain EPR authorisation. Goods imported contrary to a prohibition under any other law are liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the expression "prohibition" includes restrictions. Goods imported without the required authorisation were therefore prohibited goods within Section 2(33).

Conclusion: The non-production of EPR authorisation at the time of import was a sufficient ground for confiscation, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the redemption fine imposed for re-export called for further reduction.

Analysis: Once confiscation is made, redemption is only a statutory mitigation under Section 125(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The importer had sought re-export, and the Commissioner had imposed a redemption fine which was already reduced by the Tribunal. On the facts, no further reduction was warranted.

Conclusion: Further reduction of redemption fine was declined, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 required interference for want of mens rea.

Analysis: Section 112(a) attaches penalty to an act or omission rendering the goods liable to confiscation and does not use language requiring proof of knowledge, wilfulness, fraud or intention. In the absence of such statutory words, mens rea was not treated as an essential ingredient. The Tribunal had already reduced the penalty, and no further interference was justified.

Conclusion: The reduced penalty was sustained, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in entirety, and the confiscation, redemption fine and reduced penalty were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where import of goods is contrary to a restriction imposed under another law, those goods are liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, and penalty under Section 112(a) can be imposed without proof of mens rea unless the statute expressly requires it.

---