TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1155
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Order-in-Original dated 30.03.2015 regarding the absolute confiscation of the goods and also imposed penalty. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a trader of petroleum products and in the course of business imported Rubber Process Oil (RPO) and filed Bill of Entry No. 9074606 dated 19.01.2013 for clearance of 150 MT of Rubber Process Oil. The imported goods were purchased on high seas sales basis from M/s Om Udyog of Ludhiana who had purchased these goods against invoice No. RPO-3021 dated 02.01.2013 issued by M/s Richmond Petrochem Trading. Sharjah, U.A.E. at unit price of USD 450. The import shed staff did not allow the goods to be cleared under RMS but were examined as per appraisement instructions;....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the basis of the test repot, the appellant was issued show cause notice dated 12.07.2013 with a proposal for confiscation under section 111(d) & (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and for re-export of goods in terms of Rule 17 of the Rules. Further proposal to impose penalty under Section 112 of the Act and other provision were raised. Thereafter, the appellant requested for the supply of the documents relied upon in the notice, but his request was not accepted and even his prayer for cross-examination was also not accepted by the authorities, thereafter, by following the due process, the adjudicating authority vide order dated 30.03.2015. order of absolute confiscation of the goods and also imposed penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er submits that report of the CRCL in the present case cannot be relied upon for determining the hazardous nature of rubber process oil because the CRCL does not hold recognized accreditation for hazardous waste characterization. He further submits that the findings of CRCL cannot be relied to hold that the nature of RPO is hazardous; he also submits that the said report of the CRCL was not supplied to the appellant; learned counsel further submits that the Department in this case should have allowed re-export of the goods under Rule 17 of the Hazardous Waste Rules, 2008 within a period of 90 days from the date of seizure. He further submits that the show cause notice sent by the Department itself specifically proposed to confiscate and re-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....* Principal Commissioner Vs. Gandhar Oil Refinery (i) Ltd. reported in 2018 (360) ELT A177 (S.C.) * Shree Ganesh International Vs. Commissioner of Cenntral Jaipur, vide final order No. 1097-1098 of 2004 dated 11.10.2004. * Shree Salasar Tools (An HUF) Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai reported in 2023 (5) Centax 128 (Tri.-Mad)] * M.K.A Chinnasamy Nadar & Sons Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin reported in 2021 (378) ELT 511 (Tri.-Chennai). 6. On the other hand, learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order and submitted that the impugned goods were found to be in violation of the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rule, 2008 and therefore, the appellant can only....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Appeals), it was incumbent upon the customs department that the impugned goods should have been got tested from the recognized laboratory because the report of CRCL cannot be relied upon for determining the hazardous nature of the RPO as CRCL does not hold recognized accreditation for hazardous waste characterization. 8. Further, we find that the once the department in the show cause notice has given a specific proposal for re-export of the goods under Rule 17 of the Hazardous Waste Rules, 2008 but finally confiscated the goods without giving the option to the importer of the same. Further, we find that as per the provisions of Customs Act, the re-export should be allowed within the period of 90 days but in the present case this time lim....