2022 (8) TMI 1063 - AT - Customs

Rejection of provisional release of goods imported by the appellant - Secondary grade goods - Prime goods or not - Department is that the appellants forged Mill Test Certificate and that goods imported by the appellant, under seizure are not BIS compliant - HELD THAT - The impugned goods are manufactured by the some other manufacturer and supplied by someone else. We find that as per BIS standard and the control order cited above it is the goods that should be as per BIS specifications and the manufacturer should be licensed or registered by BIS (Bureau of Indian Standard). The rules do not specified that the supplier should be registered - as per the argument of the Department, as far as the genuineness of Mill Test Certificate is concerned, may be relevant to ascertain the bona fides of the appellant importer in the adjudication proceedings This is not relevant for provisional release as it is established that goods, independently tested after the import in India, are BIS compliant. The department should not have any objection in releasing the goods provisionally. However, we are of the opinion that at the same time the interest of the Revenue is to be safeguarded. We find that Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that they have already deposited about Rs 1.53 Cr which is very huge compare to the value of the seized goods i.e. less than 2 Cr. Learned Authorized Representative therefore, submits that the deposit made by the appellants was towards duty liability in respect of the past imports and not for the impugned goods. The importer has been suffering for the last 3 years. He had to approach the Honourable High Court and this Tribunal to get the goods tested and released provisionally. As per the submissions of both the parties, adjudication is not likely to be completed in near future - there is no reason as to why the appellant should suffer as, the goods are tested to be BIS compliant and the manufacturer of the goods is claimed to be registered with the BIS. The interest of justice would be met if the department issues a detention certificate, as applicable, for waiver of demurrage charges - the impugned seized goods shall be provisionally release subject to the conditions imposed - application allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Provisional release of seized imported goods.
2. Compliance with Bureau of Indian Standard (BIS) specifications and licensing requirements.
3. Forged/fabricated Mill Test Certificates (MTC) submitted by the importer.
4. Conditions for provisional release and safeguarding revenue interest.

Issue 1: Provisional Release of Seized Imported Goods:
The appellant filed an application against the Commissioner of Customs' order rejecting the provisional release of imported CRGO sheets seized by the Department. The appellant had imported goods suspected to be "Secondary grade" while declaring them as "Prime goods." The Tribunal had previously remanded the case back to the Original Authority for reconsideration. The appellant sought provisional release due to substantial financial losses and delays in adjudication.

Issue 2: Compliance with BIS Specifications and Licensing Requirements:
The Department alleged that the appellant submitted forged/fabricated MTCs and failed to meet BIS standards and licensing conditions. The Department emphasized the necessity for goods to conform to BIS standards, bear BIS marks, and the manufacturer to have BIS registration. Various legal precedents were cited to support the strict observance of mandatory conditions.

Issue 3: Forged/Fabricated Mill Test Certificates:
The Department contended that the appellant submitted forged MTCs and did not comply with BIS standards. The appellant argued that internationally reputed manufacturers supplied the goods and would provide BIS registration/license details. The authenticity of MTCs was deemed relevant for adjudication but not for provisional release, as post-import testing confirmed BIS compliance.

Issue 4: Conditions for Provisional Release and Safeguarding Revenue Interest:
After considering submissions, the Tribunal found the seized goods to be BIS compliant and the manufacturer to be registered with BIS. The Department's objection to provisional release was rejected. The Tribunal ordered provisional release subject to conditions: submission of a bond, a bank guarantee, proof of manufacturer's BIS registration, and issuance of a detention certificate to waive demurrage charges.

The Tribunal's decision on the provisional release of seized goods was based on the compliance with BIS standards, licensing requirements, and the appellant's financial hardships. The order aimed to balance the interests of the appellant and revenue protection, emphasizing the need for strict compliance with legal standards and conditions for release.