2024 (10) TMI 1365 - HC - Customs

Customs detention of imported rubber process oil quashed due to procedural violations and improper test report handling

M/s. New Horizons Asphalt Private Limited Versus The Chief Commissioner of Custom And Anr.

Delhi HC allowed petition challenging detention of imported rubber process oil. Court found customs department failed to establish chemical examiner was ... Challenge to holding/impounding/detaining of the rubber process oil stated to have been imported by the petitioner - seeking direction to the respondents to release the said goods and also to pay the compensation - Hazardous Waste or not - HELD THAT:- The record produced by Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Appraiser, ICT Import, Customs Department, who brought the relevant record reflects that the sample was only tested by Mr. Arun Kumar Maurya, Chemical Examiner GR-2, from the office of the Regional Revenues Control Laboratory, New Delhi-110012, controlled by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India but it does not reflect that the said Chemical Examiner GR-2 was recognised in terms of Circular dated 23.02.2009. It is also not reflecting that the test report dated 31.12.2014 was ever supplied to the petitioner. Although, Mr. Harpreet Singh argued whether the information was given to the CHA of the petitioner, who intends to inform about the test report to the petitioner. It is appearing from the averments made in the petition that the CHA was informed about the test report but it is not reflecting that the test report dated 31.12.2014 was actually supplied to the petitioner to oppose the detention /unclearing of goods i.e. rubber process oil which was not done in accordance with the rules and regulations. Petition allowed. Issues:Challenge of holding/impounding/detaining imported rubber process oil, Mis-declaration of goods, Contravention of Customs Act, Misinterpretation of test reports, Delay in filing petition, Compliance with hazardous waste rules, Recognition of testing laboratory, Release of detained goods, Payment of customs duty.Analysis:1. Challenge of Holding/Impounding/Detaining Imported Goods:The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the holding/impounding/detaining of rubber process oil imported from UAE. The petitioner claimed to have followed all legal procedures and submitted required documents for import. The goods were detained for being categorized as hazardous waste, leading to the petition seeking release and compensation.2. Mis-declaration of Goods and Contravention of Customs Act:The respondents alleged that the petitioner mis-declared the goods as rubber process oil when they were actually prohibited goods falling under Hazardous Waste Rules. The petitioner was accused of contravening the Customs Act by importing goods not in compliance with regulations.3. Misinterpretation of Test Reports:A sample of the imported rubber process oil was tested, indicating it as hazardous waste due to certain content levels. The petitioner claimed they were not informed of the test report promptly and argued that the goods did not fall under hazardous waste category in previous imports.4. Delay in Filing Petition:The respondents argued that the petition was time-barred, filed after five years, and highlighted the importance of timely actions based on test reports. The petitioner's delay in pursuing re-testing and addressing the test results was a point of contention.5. Compliance with Hazardous Waste Rules:The respondents emphasized that the goods did not meet hazardous waste regulations based on test reports and rules under Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008. The petitioner's failure to act on test results was a key argument.6. Recognition of Testing Laboratory:The judgment scrutinized the recognition of the testing laboratory as per Circulars related to hazardous waste testing. The record showed discrepancies in the testing process and the communication of test reports to the petitioner, raising concerns about procedural compliance.7. Release of Detained Goods and Payment of Customs Duty:Ultimately, the court allowed the petition and directed the release of the detained goods within four weeks. The petitioner was instructed to pay any pending customs duty and charges applicable to complete the release process, ensuring compliance with legal obligations.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal complexities surrounding the importation and detention of goods, emphasizing the importance of adherence to regulations, timely actions, and procedural transparency in such cases.