AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1472
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....adapters etc. from M/s.Sato Argox India Private Limited, Haryana as per 'high seas sale agreement' dated 23.02.2018. The goods arrived at Kochi and they were examined by the officer concerned. It was then found that the company had not obtained Extended Producer Responsibility - Authorisation (for short "EPR-Authorisation") which was required for importing the printers. The company waived the service of show cause notice on it as it wanted reexport of the goods. After hearing the representative of the company, the Commissioner of Customs (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') confiscated the goods but allowed the company to redeem the goods for re-export on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The Commissioner also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the company. 3. The company filed appeal against the order of the Commissioner before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore. Meanwhile, the supplier of the goods had obtained EPR-Authorisation. As per the impugned order dated 05.11.2018 in the appeal, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner should have considered the request of the company to amend th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing of e-waste or electrical and electronic equipment listed in Schedule I, including their components, consumables, parts and spares which make the product operational. Schedule I of the Rules specifies the equipments for which EPR-Authorisation is required. Printer is one of the equipments specified in Schedule I of the Rules. 9. True, Rule 2 does not contain the expression "importer". The category of persons specified in Rule 2, to whom the Rules are made applicable, does not include an "importer" of the goods mentioned in Schedule I of the Rules. 10. However, the Rules are applicable to every producer. The term "producer" is defined under Rule 3(cc) of the Rules. As per Clause (iii) of Rule 3(cc), "producer" means any person who, irrespective of the selling technique used such as dealer, retailer, e-retailer etc, offers to sell imported electrical and electronic equipment and their components or consumables or parts or spares. The appellant company has no case that it has imported the printers not for sale. The company was involved in purchase and sale of the printers imported. Therefore, the company comes within the definition of "producer", who is specified in Rule 2, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l types of prohibitions. Restriction is one type of prohibition (See Sheikh Mohd. Omar v. Collector of Customs : AIR 1971 SC 293). 14. In the instant case, the printers imported by the company were prohibited goods within the meaning of Section 2(33) of the Act as they were goods for which EPR-Authorisation was required under the Rules. Therefore, the customs authority had the power to confiscate them. 15. At this juncture, it is also to be noted that, as per the entry in item No.4 in Schedule IV of the Rules, customs authority under the Act has the duty to verify the EPRAuthorisation and to inform the Central Pollution Control Board of any illegal traffic for necessary action and also to take action against the importer for violations under the Act. 16. In the aforesaid circumstances, the contention of the appellant that, production of EPR-Authorisation was not necessary for importing the printers but it was necessary only at the time of collection and transport of the imported goods, is only to be rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Customs Appeal No.19/2017 (Commissioner of Customs v. M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the goods are cleared for re-export (See M/s Afzal Agency v. Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal: 2005 (4) KLT 821). The provision for confiscation under Section 111 of the Act lists various contingencies in which such confiscation can be proceeded with. When confiscation is provided and the Commissioner effects confiscation, then the goods becomes the property of the Central Government. A mitigation is provided insofar as the owner of the goods to opt for redemption under Section 125 of the Act (See Commissioner of Customs v. Nalin Choksey: 2018 (2) KLT 349). 20. In the instant case, the company had requested the Commissioner to grant permission for re-export of the goods and exercised the option to redeem the goods for that purpose. Therefore, the Commissioner imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 4,00,000/- on the company to enable it to re-export the goods. The Tribunal has reduced the amount of redemption fine to Rs. 2,00,000/-. We find no sufficient ground to further reduce the amount of redemption fine. 21. The Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the company. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the company was not aware of th....