2018 (11) TMI 1759

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... He has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the importer under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant's firm purchased two shipments of barcode printers, scanners, printer parts, power adapter etc. from M/s. Sato Argox India Pvt. Ltd., Haryana through High Seas Sale Agreement dated 23-2-2018, placed on record. Thereafter when the goods arrived at Cochin, the appellant filed Bill of Entry No. 5475163, dated 6-3-2018. The goods were examined by the proper officer at CFS Q10 and reported that EPR for printers is applicable as per the E-waste (Management) Rules, 2015 issued vide Notification dated 23-3-2016 by Min. of Environment and Forest, which is not produced b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of the appellant has not yet been considered by the concerned officer on the ground that he does not have the power to consider such request. Thereafter the appellant approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing the Writ Petition No. 30134 of 2018 and the Hon'ble High Court vide judgment dated 16-10-2018 directing the appellant to approach the Tribunal. 3. Heard both sides and perused records. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order imposing the redemption fine of Rs. 4 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under the Customs Act, 1962 is not sustainable in law. He further submitted that at the time of filing the Bill of Entry, the appellant was not aware of such certificate which is re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... I find that the appellant purchased the goods vide High Seas Sale Agreement and filed the Bill of Entry but on perusal of the Bill of Entry, the Department found that there is a requirement of EPR certificate and is mandatory but the appellant did not furnish that certificate and in the absence of that certificate, the goods were confiscated and released in favour of the appellant for the purpose of re-export on payment of redemption fine and penalty. Further I find that in the meantime, the supplier of the goods got the EPR authorization from the CPCB and thereafter the appellant approached the Commissioner for amending the Bill of Entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act under which the respondent is empowered to amend the Bill of Entr....