2017 (10) TMI 986

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....TH 7204 4900 and was assessed under RMS. Import duty of Rs. 2,28,027/- was paid by the importer. On examination, the consignment in all the four containers were found as pressed bundles of cans along with plastic covers, plastic bottles, hazardous waste materials, etc., which were prohibited under the Hazardous Wastes Management, Handling and Trans boundary Movement Rules, 2008. This was a case of mis-declared import of hazardous waste in the guise of LMS. The importer vide letter dated 19.11.2010 had admitted that consignments contained plastic waste, cotton waste, etc., and requested for permission to re-export the entire cargo. The mis-declared goods were confiscated and ordered to be re-exported at their own risk and cost, on payment of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rtificate issued by Sandeep Garg and Company, UK dated 9.3.2010 and beneficial certificate dated 9.9.2010. When the containers were examined by the Customs, then the Customs rejected the cargo because it included plastic material and waste material which were prohibited. Thereafter, appellant immediately informed the supplier and vide their letter dated 2.11.2010 rejected the cargo and stopped the payment towards LC. The appellant thereafter requested the Deputy Commissioner vide letter dated 4.11.2010 seeking permission to re-export the entire goods imported in four containers because the goods received were not in conformity with the purchase order, invoice, pre-shipment inspection certificate. Thereafter, the Additional Commissioner issu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... • Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. Vs. CC, Kolkata: 2004 (172) ELT 411 (T). • DM Shah & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Kolkata: 2005 (185) ELT 423 (T) • Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC (Import): 2006 (202) ELT 817 (T) 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the impugned order is not sustainable in law because the refund was rejected only under Section 26A of the Customs Act, 1962, which according to me is not applicable in the present case. Because in the present case, the impugned goods were not cleared by the Customs for home consumption whereas the provi....