Page 222 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

444 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

11-7-2017 for home clearance by assessing the goods to customs duty of
Rs. 2,85,363/- and claiming exemption from Basic Customs Duty under Notifica-
tion No. 24/2005-Cus. The said import was also subjected to investigation by the
SIIB and they again recorded the statement of Shri Mohammed Asif. Thereafter
the officers of SIIB drew representative samples of both the consignments on 24-
7-2017 and forwarded the same in envelope to the Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore (IISc, for short) for analysis. The IISc, Bangalore vide its report dated
8-8-2017 clearly indicated that the samples sent in envelop were broken pieces of
solar photovoltaic cells. Thereafter the officers of SIIB vide their letter dated 21-7-
2017 also sought clarification from the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB),
Bangalore as well as the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB), Ban-
galore. CPCB vide its report dated 5-9-2017 observed that the solar cells (bro-
ken/small pieces of silicon wafer) imported by the appellant does not appear in
any of the Schedule of the Hazardous and other Wastes (Management & Trans-
boundary Movement) Rules, 2016. The KSPCB after physical inspection of the
imported goods, vide its report dated 31-10-2017 observed that the material con-
tain cut piece solar cells and silicon wafers which may be used for various solar
applications like assembling of solar lantern, solar light etc., based on size of the
usage. It has also been observed that the scrap solar cell (broker) does not appear
in any of the Schedule of the Hazardous and other Wastes (Management &
Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016. Thereafter the Revenue issued a show
cause notice dated 3-1-2018 to the appellant with a proposal to declare the im-
ported goods as waste and scrap and to re-classify the same under CTH 3825 69
00 by rejecting the classification adopted by the appellant under CTH 8541 40 11
and also to confiscate the imported goods absolutely under Section 111(d) and
(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and consequent proposal for imposition of penalty
under Sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.
2.3 Appellant filed detailed reply to the show cause notice contesting
the allegations as baseless. After following the due process, the Additional
Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Bangalore vide its Order-in-Original dated 9-5-
2018/11-5-2018 held that the goods imported by the appellant were waste/scrap
of solar cells and thereby ordered for confiscation of the said imported goods
apart from imposing redemption fine and penalty. The Additional Commission-
er gave an option to the appellant to redeem the goods for re-export within 30
days on payment of redemption fine, failing which, he has ordered for disposal
of goods in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the order of the Additional
Commissioner directing the appellant to redeem the goods for re-export of goods
on payment of redemption fine, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.
WP24397/2018 (T-Cus). before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka seeking
direction to stay the order of re-export and consequently, for release of the seized
goods. Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 13-6-2018 granted interim stay
for disposal of the goods and subsequently vide order dated 10-10-2019 disposed
of the Writ Petition with a direction to the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal in an
expeditious manner. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Commis-
sioner, the appellant has filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and
the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal dated 13-11-2018 rejected the
appeal by upholding the order passed by the Additional Commissioner. Hence
the present appeal.
3. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3.1 Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned or-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  222