TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 297
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to Rs. 50,000/- on the goods confiscated and also reduced the penalty to Rs. 1,00,000/- while upholding the impugned order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 25.02.2015 and confirming the directions of the Adjudicating Authority to re-export the goods. It is observed that this is the second round of litigation in the matter. 2. Heard both sides. The Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that they are an established manufacturing unit functioning for more than 15 years, and an 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) manufacturing Plastic bags and Plastic Granules and exporting the same. They import raw material viz., plastic scrap (Non Hazardous) and use the same in the process of manufacture of the final products. He submits that they regu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the LOP conditions and therefore confiscated the goods and imposed redemption fine and penalty along with a direction to re-export the goods. The appellants agitated against the same in the first round of litigation, which reached up to the Tribunal. The appellants had argued that the sample drawn was not representative and therefore they had sought drawl of fresh sample and re-testing of the same. The first appellate authority viz., Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for redrawing the sample. The said decision was upheld by the Tribunal in the first round of litigation. The Learned Counsel submits that the Department however instead of drawing fresh sample, re-tested the remnant sample, which was con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... virgin used. He submits that the word virgin itself means that the goods are unused, and in any case, more than 98% of the consignment which are new plastic films without bar code are undisputedly not put to any use by any stretch of imagination. That is why they had requested for redrawl of sample in the first round of litigation. However, in spite of the clear directions of the Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal in the first round of litigation, the Department chose to test the remnant sample instead of drawing fresh sample which served no purpose. The Learned Counsel further submits that even according to Department, the impugned goods are free from toxic and Hazardous Contamination . Therefore, there is no reason why it should be re-e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... bar codes were to be separated/segregated and to be re-exported, and the remaining portion of the goods allowed for clearance on payment of reduced redemption fine and penalty. 3. On the other hand, the Learned Authorised Representative for Revenue submits that as per the test report, the goods are virgin used and as per the LOP conditions, used goods are not permitted to be imported. Therefore, there is no illegality in the orders of the lower authorities in directing the goods to be re-exported. He submits that the redemption fine was imposed under the provisions of Customs Act, whereas, re-export of the goods is for violation of the Hazardous Waste Rules, 2008. 4. On careful examination of the records and the arguments of both sid....