Power goes over the roof
Apropos of the column “Turning your rooftop into a power plant” (FE, June 25), the cost of conventional is power getting steeper as coal-fired power plants are difficult to operate under stringent pollution laws. As a result, industrial units in sun-drenched parts of the globe put up solar panels on roofs and power companies build massive solar farms. In the US, big-ticket retail stores have taken the lead and are covering their roofs with solar panels thanks to broad empty roofs and government incentives. For example, Walmart installed more solar panel capacity due to ready access to acres of unused roofs of their stores than the entire state of Florida by 2012. Their stores get as much as 30% of their power from solar. The panels on Walmart’s roofs are owned and operated by third-party solar companies from which the company buys energy through power-purchase agreements. IKEA, known for its massive, warehouse-style stores, is also putting its empty roofs to use. It’s buying the panels instead of following power-purchase agreements to take advantage of federal subsidies, which grant investment credits to those that invest in renewable energy. India is a sun-blessed nation and its power tariffs are already hitting the roof! There is a sunny future in this profitable business of solar power.
R Narayanan, Ghaziabad
CBEC: Technicality not enough
This refers to the editorial “CBEC vs Make-in-India” (FE, June 24). In order to determine the applicable rate of customs duty for imported goods, an important prerequisite is to fix the classification of goods with reference to entries in the Customs Tariff Schedule, which is based on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System—a multi-purpose global product nomenclature developed by the World Customs Organisation (WCO). It comprises about 5,000 commodity groups, each identified by a six-digit code, arranged in a legal and logical structure, and is supported by well-defined rules to achieve uniform classification. Section 151A of the Customs Act, 1962, empowers CBEC to issue instructions to field officers with regard to classification of goods for the purpose of uniformity. It is in this context that when doubts were expressed with regard to classification of parts/components imported for manufacture of mobile phones—which were otherwise granted exemption from customs duty—that CBEC issued a circular in January 2005 that when such parts/components are imported in a single consignment, they are to be classified as ‘complete mobile handset’ and not as ‘parts/components’. CBEC cited rule 2(a) of the Interpretive Rules—the ‘essential character rule’—as the basis of this decision. Arguably, CBEC’s ruling may be technically correct, but its role does not end there. It cannot be oblivious of government’s policy intention of exempting parts, components to manufacturers of mobile phones. CBEC has to ensure that the rigour of technical disability of classification is blunted through suitable legislative amendment to give effect to policy intention. It is all the more expected when CBEC itself is part of policy-making. Is it that the right hand of CBEC does not know what the left hand is doing?
TR Rustagi, New Delhi
Please send your letters to:
The Editor,The Financial Express, B1/B, Sector – 10, Noida – 201301. Distt: Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.).
or e-mail at: feletters@expressindia.com or fax at Delhi: 0120-4367933
