ARAVIND LABORATORIES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE are two applications before us, one for waiver of pre -deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the penalty amount and the other seeking early disposal of the appeal. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we are of the view that the appeal requires to be finally disposed of at this stage. Hence, after allowing both the applications, we proceed to deal with the appeal.

(2.) THE appellants had imported a consignment containing Maroon -coloured and Black -coloured Rayon Flock with non -woven backing and filed a Bill of Entry for its clearance. Upon first check basis examination, the Customs authorities wanted to get the samples tested for contents of hazardous dyes. The Test Report relating to the Maroon -coloured Rayon Flock showed that the hazardous dye content was within limits, but that relating to the Black -coloured Rayon Flock indicated hazardous dye content exceeding the limit prescribed under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. On the basis of the test results, the original authority allowed clearances of the Maroon -coloured item but ordered confiscation of the Black -coloured Rayon Flock under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act. It also imposed a penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs on the importer under Section 112(a) of the Act. In the appeal preferred by the assessee against the decision of the original authority, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the quantum of penalty to Rs. 50,000/ - and, subject to this, sustained the decision of the lower authority. The present appeal is against the penalty of Rs. 50,000/ -.

(3.) LD . Counsel for the appellants submits that neither they nor their supplier was aware of the hazardous dye content of the Black -coloured goods. The appellants had no intention to import any such hazardous goods. Ld. Counsel further points out that, though the original authority had allowed the importer to re -export the hazardous material, the first appellate authority did not examine this aspect. I have heard ld. SDR also, who reiterates the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals).