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>Tribunal Upholds Re-export Order for Misdeclared Plastic Waste; Appellant Penalized, Must Re-export at Their Cost.</h1> <h3>M/s Ardee Business Pvt Ltd Versus The Commissioner of Customs Central Excise & Service Tax</h3> The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to order the re-export of 42.410 MTs of misdeclared plastic waste ... Absolute Confiscation with an option to re-export the goods within 45 days - levy of penalty - import of 42.410 MTs of goods declared as UBC aluminium - permission from the Ministry of Environment and Forests not obtained - HELD THAT:- From the grounds of appeal, It is seen that appellant is not denying that the goods in question were plastic waste only. They have not made any submission to the effect that they have obtained any permission to import the same. In fact they have made a request that since the goods in question cannot be re-exported, they should be allowed to destroy the material under such conditions and restrictions as may be imposed by the Customs Authorities in consultation with the Pollution Control laws as applicable in India. This request from their side shows that they were fully aware that the goods in question were plastic materials only, but still they had declared the same as UBC aluminum while filing their Bill of Entry. There are no reason to interfere with the said order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal dismissed. Issues involved: Import of plastic waste without required permission, misdeclaration of goods as UBC aluminum, confiscation of goods, penalty imposition, appeal before the Tribunal.Import of Plastic Waste without Permission: The case involved the importation of 42.410 MTs of goods declared as UBC aluminum, which upon examination were found to be plastic scrap containing chappals and broken computer cabinets. The Department noted that the imported plastic scrap fell under B3010 of part B of Schedule III of the Hazardous Wastes Rules 2008, requiring permission from the Ministry of Environment and Forests for importation. As no permission was obtained, absolute confiscation of the goods was ordered with an option for re-export within 45 days, along with imposition of a penalty of Rs 20,000 on the appellant.Misdeclaration of Goods: The appellant did not deny that the goods were plastic waste and did not have permission for importation. They requested to destroy the material under specified conditions, indicating their awareness of the nature of the goods despite declaring them as UBC aluminum in the Bill of Entry.Decision of Commissioner (Appeals): The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order for re-export of the impugned goods, emphasizing the intentional importation of hazardous waste and the need for deterrent action to prevent such activities in the future. Referring to Rule 17(2) of the Hazardous Wastes Rules 2008, the Commissioner affirmed the requirement for the importer to re-export the waste at their cost within ninety days from its arrival in India.Tribunal's Decision: After reviewing the facts and statutory provisions, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) order and dismissed the appeal accordingly. The decision was pronounced and dictated in open court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
