TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 124
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 arising from alleged misdeclaration of 'zinc ash' - which, being restricted in the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP), required licence for import and, being 'hazardous waste', was liable to be returned to country of despatch in terms of rule 17(2) of Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 - as 'zinc dust' in documents submitted to customs authorities. The other detriments in the impugned order of Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot (ICD), Mulund, viz., rejection of declared value for re-determination thereof as Rs. 18,83,302 under the authority of rule 9 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 as well as confiscation under section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted only against licence failing which was liable to be ordered for re-export under Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 and thus proceeded against in the manner that caused grievance to the appellant. 3. The results of test of representative sample has not been controverted and nor is the classification as 'zinc ash'; the records also do not indicate any dispute either over the pre-requisites for invoking of Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 or the loaded value of the goods which, in any case, at 22% was less than the enhancement 87% at the time of assessment and, further owing to re-export of the goods, irrelevant to determination of duty liability. The ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....per than Zinc dust and thus serves no meaningful purpose to them does not cut much ice as Zinc ash is an hazardous item and cannot be brought into the country without permit from the Ministry of Environment and Forest or Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). The importer may have had their reasons to import such items into the Country. It is also an admitted fact that the importers did not have any licence or permit from CPCB or Ministry of Environment and Forest to import Zinc Ash. Thus, the goods become prohibited within the meaning of Section 2 (33) read with Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962. The prohibited goods have been attempted to be imported in contravention of Rule 13 (1) & 17 of the HWMHT Rules, 2008 and the provisions of Fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tribunal in Siddiq Yusuf Merchant v. Commissioner of Customs (NS-V), Nhava Sheva [2022 (5) TMI 1318 - CESTAT (Mumbai)] and in Global Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs (NS-V), Nhava Sheva [2019 (4) TMI 1050 - CESTAT (Mumbai)] to plead that goods ordered to be exported, without option of redemption for home consumption, should not be burdened with fine and penalty. 6. Learned Authorized Representative submitted that, in the absence of controverting of goods having been brought into India contrary to the licencing regime, there could be no flaw in confiscation under section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 and pointed out that the appeal could not sustain in the light of the adjudicating authority having placed on record leniency shown in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(Management, Handling & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 is held as the final word in that particular enforcement of law. In similar circumstances of mandate to prevent entry contrary to restrictions on drugs and cosmetics into India, it was held in re Siddiq Yusuf Merchant that '13. We find merit in the argument of the appellants. There is no doubt that since the goods are not supported with CDSCO certificate definitely be considered as prohibited under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the rules made thereunder and the consequence thereof is confiscation. But, simultaneously, it cannot be ignored that some procedure has been prescribed under Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 to mitigate such a situation where the imported co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CC, Nhava Sheva - 2019 (169) ELT 1596 (Tri.-Mum)' and under the restrictions pertaining to prescription of the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) in re Global Enterprises that '6. As the imported goods, though required to be, are not compliant with the standards, they fail to overcome the bar of prohibition at the threshold. Hence the question of duty liability, differential or otherwise, will not arise. This is in conformity with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in re Sewpujanrai Indrasanarai Ltd that requirement to discharge duty liability will have to be established before it can be demanded. However, failure to comply with the norms prescribed by Bureau of Indian Standards would render the goods liable to confisc....