2025 (3) TMI 634

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Respondent ORDER The appellant has imported 8 PLT of Toner for Multifunction Printers classifiable under CTH 84439959 on 30.8.2017 by Bill of Entry No. 3041643. After finding that, as per Rule 5 and 3 of E-Waste Management Rules 2016, the appellant was required to produce the certificate known name Extended Producer Responsibility, but this was not done in the case of the imported goods, the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Accordingly he set aside the Redemption fine and penalty imposed under the OIO and revised the same to the extent of 10% of the value of the goods as Redemption Fine and penalty of 5% of the value of the goods. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before the Tribunal. 4. The Learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that the appellant was not aware of the Rule towards EPR. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... it is specified that if the Commissioner (Appeals) proposes to enhance the penalty or fine, he should issue a Show Cause Notice to the appellant towards this. Such a notice was never issued to the appellant. Hence, the appellant was not even aware that the Redemption Fine and penalty would be enhanced. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) is in error in directly enhancing the Redemption Fine and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d that the very fact as to whether the appellant is required to file EPR in case of the goods imported by them is under question. E-waste Rules were implemented from 2016 and the appellant has imported in 2017. Probably, they were not even aware that they are required to file the same. The Learned Advocates submits that the imported goods do not require this condition to be fulfilled. However, on ....