https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383776 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. en-us Tue, 23 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Nov 2019 13:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383776 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. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 23 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383776