TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1020
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d for home consumption on redemption fine. Reasonable cause having been shown, we allow the miscellaneous application. 2. Appeal has been filed against order in original 02/CUS/COMMR/GZB/2014-15 dated 30.07.2014 in terms of which the following order was passed. 1. I reject the declared assessable value of Rs. 71,09,495.76 for the goods imported vide Bill of Entry No. 2678130 & 2678036 both dated 11.07.2013, 2757988 dated 19.07.2013 & 2789242 dated 23.07.2013 under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 read with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. I re-determine the assessable value at Rs. 1,28,47,268/-under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp;(3) The impugned tyres were covered under Entry B-3140 in Part-B (list of hazard waste applicable for import and export not requiring prior informed consent) of Schedule-III of the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules) and therefore their import required permission from the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) which the importers did not possess. 4. The appellants have contended that- (i) The impugned tyres are used tyres which are having minimum residual life of about 45% to 50% and are therefore re-usable. (ii) Old and used tyres are specifically mentioned in ITC (HS) classification of Import and Export items und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ver, we find that the impugned goods do not figure in Part A of Schedule-III of the said Rules. The said list contains the description of goods import of which requires permission from the competent authority for their import. It is also seen that Part B of Schedule-III of the said Rules does not cover the impugned goods inasmuch as it covers only such waste of pneumatic tyres which do not lead to resource, recovery, re-cycling or direct reuse. The impugned tyres without any doubt are directly reusable and hence are clearly excluded from the said entry B-3140. Thus, the adjudicating authority is not correct to hold (as it did in para 5.20 of the impugned order) that Basel B-3140 covers all used tyres which lead to resource recovery, recycli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rep0/HWMD/9054 dated 23.01.2014, it is seen that the opinion contained therein is tentative inasmuch as it states that (i) the tyres appear to be used tyres (listed as item B-3140 Schedule-III of Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 (ii) Import of used tyres in the country needs prior approval of MoEF, and (iii) CPCB could not carry out testing of tyres as it has not analysed such samples before. Analytical methods also required to be standardised for this purpose. The said report is evidently incorrect because used tyres which are directly reusable (as the impugned tyres are) are excluded from the entry B-3140. Further as the CPCB could not carry out testing of impugned tyres, their opinion could n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n redemption fine and penalty for having been imported without licence because they were not freely importable by virtue of the fact that CIF value per tyre was less than US$ 25 per piece. CESTAT in the case of Universal Trading Co. vs. CC, Kandla vide its order No. KDL/COMMR/48/2012-13 dt. 09.01.2013 also did not hold that such used (reusable) tyres required permission of MoEF for import. 9. As regards the value, we find that the adjudicating authority has systematically dealt with this issue, first coming to a finding as to why the transaction value was not acceptable and then re-determining the value as per the provision of Customs (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. We find that such re-determination of value was ....