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>Court upholds provisional release of imported goods; importer's claim tied to Customs Act adjudication.</h1> <h3>Union of India, The Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (SIIB), Tuticorin Versus M/s. Black Gold Technologies,</h3> Union of India, The Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (SIIB), Tuticorin Versus M/s. Black Gold Technologies, - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legality of the import of 'Used Rubber Tyre Cut into Two Pieces'.2. Compliance with Foreign Trade Policy and Hazardous Waste Management Rules.3. Provisional release of imported goods.4. Adjudication of the Show Cause Notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Import of 'Used Rubber Tyre Cut into Two Pieces':The respondent/writ petitioner claimed that the imported goods, 'Used Rubber Tyre Cut into Two Pieces,' were freely importable under the policy conditions and CTH 40040000. They argued that they had met all the conditions of the Exim Policy and were actual users of the imported goods for manufacturing 'Rubber Crumb'. However, the appellants/respondents contended that the imported goods did not have a cut in the bead wire, making them a restricted item requiring valid authorization from the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). The Customs Officers seized the goods for further investigation under the Customs Act, 1962.2. Compliance with Foreign Trade Policy and Hazardous Waste Management Rules:The appellants/respondents argued that the imported 'Used Rubber Tyres' were restricted under the Foreign Trade Policy and required valid authorization from DGFT. They also cited the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016, which mandate that waste listed under Part B of Schedule III cannot be imported without permission from the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change. The respondent/writ petitioner countered that the Hazardous Waste Management Rules were not invoked in the counter affidavits or the Show Cause Notice.3. Provisional Release of Imported Goods:The learned Single Judge directed the appellants/respondents to assess and permit the provisional release of the goods upon payment of applicable customs duties. The appellants/respondents challenged this decision, arguing that the imported goods violated the import policy. The respondent/writ petitioner cited a Supreme Court judgment (Atul Automations Pvt. Ltd.) that allowed provisional release of restricted goods, supporting the decision of the learned Single Judge. The Court noted that the appellants/respondents had not taken a stand on the applicability of the Hazardous Waste Management Rules in their counter affidavits.4. Adjudication of the Show Cause Notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962:The respondent/writ petitioner acknowledged receiving a Show Cause Notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, and stated that they would defend the proceedings appropriately. The Court emphasized that the provisional release was subject to the outcome of the adjudication proceedings initiated by the Show Cause Notice.Conclusion:The Court dismissed the Writ Appeals, confirming the common orders dated 25.08.2020 and 03.09.2020, which allowed the provisional release of the imported goods. The Court clarified that the interests of both parties were protected and that the claim or otherwise of the writ petitioner/importer was subject to the outcome of the adjudication proceedings. The Miscellaneous Petitions connected to the Writ Appeals were also dismissed, with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 