Import restrictions on waste goods cannot support confiscation, penalty, or duty demand absent proved misdeclaration.

Imported plastic waste and scrap cleared through an export-oriented unit under customs control were treated as waste material rather than misdeclared goods, because testing indicated virgin plant waste and mutilation permission was later obtained. On that basis, confiscation was held unwarranted and set aside. With no proved misdeclaration, the foundation for personal penalty failed and the penalty was also set aside. Duty demand was likewise found unsustainable because the goods were meant for conversion into agglomeration and granules for export-oriented manufacture, and the demand was annulled. The stated principle is that, absent proved misdeclaration or violation of import restrictions, confiscation, penalty, and duty cannot be sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported plastic waste and scrap were liable to confiscation for alleged violation of the Import-Export Policy and misdeclaration; (ii) whether personal penalty was sustainable; (iii) whether duty could be demanded on the imported goods.

Issue (i): Whether the imported plastic waste and scrap were liable to confiscation for alleged violation of the Import-Export Policy and misdeclaration

Analysis: The goods were imported into an Export Processing Zone under customs control for use in manufacture of export products. The sample test report indicated that the goods were virgin plant waste. Permission for mutilation was subsequently obtained from the Development Commissioner, and the circumstances showed that the dispute related to the stage and manner of clearance rather than any deliberate contravention. In these facts, the import was not treated as a violation of the relevant import restrictions.

Conclusion: Confiscation was not warranted and is set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether personal penalty was sustainable

Analysis: Since the goods were found to be virgin plant waste on testing and no misdeclaration was established, the foundation for penal action was absent.

Conclusion: Personal penalty is not sustainable and is set aside.

Issue (iii): Whether duty could be demanded on the imported goods

Analysis: The goods were intended for conversion into agglomeration and granules for export, and the tribunal treated the import as part of an export-oriented manufacturing activity within customs control. On that footing, duty demand was not justified.

Conclusion: Duty demand is not sustainable and is set aside.

Final Conclusion: The import dispute was resolved in favour of the importer, with confiscation, penalty, and duty demand all annulled and the goods directed to be fully mutilated for export-oriented use.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imported goods in an export-oriented unit are shown by testing to be waste material and are permitted to be mutilated, confiscation, penalty, and duty demand cannot be sustained absent proved misdeclaration or violation of the import restrictions.

---