Page 269 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

2020 ] SUBJECT INDEX 915
Confiscation (Contd.)
covered by licence and not be liable for confiscation - Though in import
policy date of reckoning given as per date of Bill of Lading but import
gets completed only when goods enters into India - Contention of lower
authorities that importer was not possessing licence on date of Bill of
Lading incorrect - Date of import is very relevant but not available on
record - Matter to adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order after
verifying the date of import - Sections 2(23) and 111 of Customs Act, 1962
— Radhe Exim Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad (Tri. - Ahmd.) ....... 600
— Food supplements containing beef being prohibited for import liable to
absolute confiscation - However, food items not containing beef when
misdeclared in value and description liable to confiscation with option to
redemption on payment of duty - Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 —
Him Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of Cus., New Delhi ICD TKD Export (Tri. - Del.) ...... 109
— Import of medical equipment under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. - Failure
to produce installation certificate not a ground to confiscate imported
equipment when there is no allegation of non-installation thereof -
Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 — Keshlata Cancer Hospital Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr.
of Cus. (Import), Mumbai (Tri. - Mumbai) .......................... 88
— Misdeclaration for imported goods - Small solar Cells imported from
Singapore and Germany - Misdeclaration and erroneous classification,
Allegation of - Revenue classifying impugned goods as ‘scrap/waste
solar cells’ solely on the ground that imported goods found to be broken
solar cells of different sizes - HELD : Purchase Orders, Bills of Entry and
Packing List as well as commercial invoices clearly mentioning
description of item as ‘small solar cells’ (uneven cut solar cells) -
Classification of imported goods on basis of broken solar cells, as
scrap/waste, not tenable in law because substantial quantity not found to
be in broken condition – Assessee cannot be held responsible for broken
silicon wafer found during investigation as imported small solar
cells/panel very fragile in nature and damage occurred on account of
mis-handling during investigation - Both authorities have misread and
misconstrued reports submitted by IISc., CPCB and KSPCB; and
statement recorded during investigation, wrongly relied upon - Report of
CPCB, clarifying that scrap of solar cells (broken/small pieces of silicon
wafers) not appearing in any of Schedule of the Hazardous and other
Wastes (Management & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 -
Further, technical write up of cut solar cells clearly proves that small
solar cells can be used for various solar applications depending upon the
size starting from 3w to 350w and cut/small solar cells used for various
solar applications in order to reduce the cost of solar photovoltaic
modules - Impugned order not sustainable in law and therefore same set
aside - Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 — Pace India v.
Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore (Tri. - Bang.) ..................... 442
— of exported goods - Two tests conducted on sample of exported goods
confirmed that it is not Nubuck Leather at all, process of snuffing
essential for making nubuck leather having not been undertaken -
Confiscation of goods for improper export under Sections 113(i) and
113(ia) of Customs Act, 1962 justified in view of misdeclaration of the
goods in the shipping bill by the appellant - Goods having been already
exported, redemption fine and penalty imposed upheld - Sections 114
and 125 of Customs Act, 1962 — Vas Noorullah & Co. v. Commissioner of Customs
(AIR), Chennai (Tri. - Chennai) .............................. 382

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  269