TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 22
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 (155) E.L.T. 423 (S.C.)? 2. Whether the goods misdeclared by the respondent in the bill of entry is liable to be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962? 3. Whether the goods imported by the respondent falls under the purview of Public Notice No. 392 (PN)/92-97, dated 1-1-1997? 4. Whether the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board is competent to inspect the goods and recommend for re-exportation?" 2. It is seen from the facts that the respondent is (the importer), a 100% EOU, engaged in the manufacturing flakes of plastics for export. Import of plastic scrap is restricted and it requires a specific licence from DGFT in terms o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lished in Tuticorin Co-op. Industrial Estate, Korampallam, Thoothukudi. Due to non-availability of sufficient land, the unit is not permitted to carry out any washing activity inside its premises by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. This unit has imported mixed waste plastic in 4 standard feet containers. This said containers were inspected and found that it contains all sort of plastic wastes (mostly oil cans, metal wastes, optical fibre cables, rubber hoses and other wastes) soaked with oil, dirts and other grit matters. The above plastic needs proper cleaning process such as cleaning with caustic lye to remove the oil and grease, soap oil to remove the dirty matter and final wash with water to make it fit for recycling. Since th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mporter, holding that there was mis-declaration in the bills of entry, as goods imported were different from the letter of permission read with legal agreement; that the importer had not produced a specific license to import the instant goods and hence to be treated as 'prohibited goods' by virtue of Section 2(33) of the Customs Act, 1962; thus, the goods were held to be liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962; Consequently, the importer was also liable for penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. The respondent went on appeal before the Commissioner of Customs. On going through the materials, the Commissioner of Customs pointed out that the appellants have the machinery capable of grindi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of misdeclaration. Thus the first appellate authority held that the imported material is neither, per se, hazardous nor outside the scope of LOP, as it essentially consisted of waste and scrap of PET, LDPE, PP & PVC bottles, though not in the form of bottles but in the form of cans. 6. The Revenue contested the matter further on appeal before the CESTAT. In considering the claim of the Revenue in Para 6.2, the Tribunal pointed out that the advice of the Pollution Control Board for re-export apparently was based on the fact that the respondent did not have washing facility at their Tuticorin unit. Apparently, the Tamil Nadu State Pollution Control Board was not made aware of the arrangement for getting the work of washing done through....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot covered by the LOP. Learned counsel further submitted that there were no other materials on the side of the importer to show that what was imported was mentioned in the LOP. Therefore, the Order-in-Original be confirmed. 9. Per contra, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent/importer contended that going by the LOP dated 27-7-2009, it is clear that what was imported by the petitioner was plastic waste. Further, in the notice issued by the Pollution Control Board, except the objection raised by the Pollution Control Board as to the availability of the washing facility, there is nothing on record to point out that there was violation of the permission dated 27-7-2009. 10. As already noted, in the proceedings of ....