Classification of imported goods based solely on a Chartered Engineer's report is not conclusive; where such goods are re-exported without entering domestic circulation, the redemption fine and penalty may be reduced due to lack of revenue prejudice or environmental risk.

The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Ludhiana, whereby the Order-in-Original dated 22.11.2023 has been upheld.

Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant filed Bill of Entry No. 7951240 dated 22.09.2023 at ICD, Concor, Ludhiana for clearance of one container of mixed metal scrap. The said goods were imported from Belgium under invoice no. 5406018313 dated 22.08.2023 upon examination and on the basis of Chartered Engineer’s report, the goods were not found as declared instead the container contained broken and damaged electronic and electrical articles, broken and damaged printed circuit boards (PCB’s) electrical metres etc; thereafter, on the basis of Chartered Engineer’s report the goods were detained Vide seizure memo dated 28.10.2023. After following the due process, the Additional Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 22.11.2023 rejected the classification holding that the goods are e-waste and confiscated the same under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 7,50,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 for re-exporting the said goods along with penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the same.

Heard both the parties and perused the material on record.

The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. She further submits that the goods were imported on the strength of genuine import documents and pre-inspection certificates and there was no deliberate mis-declaration, no intention to violate the law. She further submits that while the Order-in-Original, the goods were allowed to be re-exported and the appellant has already re-exported the same in pursuant to the Order-in-Original. She further submits that the shipping Bill 1699964 dated 15.06.2024 specifically records the description as "Electrical and Electronic Waste and Scrap (Re-export vide O.I.O. LDH-CUS-ADC-NC-222-2023-24 dated 22.11.2023)". She further submits that the appellant has re-exported the entire consignment and let export order was granted on 06.07.2024; she also submits that as on date, the goods are no longer in India and they were never cleared for home consumption and there is no domestic circulation of the alleged prohibited goods, no continuing environmental risk, and no revenue prejudice to the Department. The appellant has already complied with the direction of re-export. She has only challenged that in view of the fact that goods have already been exported the redemption fine of Rs. 7,50,000/- and penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- deserves to be set aside in view of the fact that the goods have already been re-exported. She also submits that the redemption fine and penalty is very harsh and the same may be set aside or should be substantially reduced. In support of her submissions, she relied upon the following decisions:

 M/s Selvam Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana – 2021 (377) ELT 458.

 M/s Siemens Limited Vs. Collector of Customs – 1999 (113) ELT 776 (S.C).

 Commissioner of Customs, (Import) Vs. Stoneman Marble Industries – 2011 (264) ELT 3 (S.C).

On the other hand, learned Authorized Representative for the Department justified the impugned order and submits that as per the Chartered Engineer’s Report, the goods are e-waste and therefore, confiscated and allowed to be re-exported on payment of redemption fine and penalty. He further submits that the decision relied upon by the appellant are distinguishable. The learned AR also submits that the redemption fine and penalty is reasonable and a lenient view has been taken because the appellant has voluntarily re