2007 (8) TMI 106 - AT - Customs

Confiscation - Alleged that the goods imported were covered under Serial No.100 of Appendix V to Notification No. 44 and appellant required to be registered but not registered with the BIS and accordingly penalty imposed - Held that the allegation not sustained and penalty set aside

Summary

Issues:
1. Upholding of adjudication order by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)
2. Confiscation of imported goods under Customs Act
3. Imposition of fines and penalties under relevant sections
4. Interpretation of Notification No. 44/(RE-2000)/1997-2002
5. Examination of BIS clarifications and their relevance to the case
6. Verification of goods' conformity to IS 4397
7. Assessment of goods based on purchase order and invoice
8. Determination of goods' quality and specifications
9. Clarification on EN 10204 testing standard
10. Decision on the requirement of BIS registration for the supplier
11. Final ruling on the appeal

Analysis:
1. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, which included the confiscation of 'cold rolled steel strips in coil form' imported by the appellants under bills of entry. Fines and penalties were imposed under Sections 111(d) and 112(d) of the Customs Act.

2. The goods were confiscated due to non-compliance with Notification No. 44, requiring the supplier to be registered with the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). Show cause notices were issued based on this non-compliance, leading to the adjudication orders.

3. The case was remanded back to the lower authority by the Commissioner (Appeals) to re-examine the issue in light of BIS clarifications. The Additional Commissioner's decision was based on the belief that the imported goods did not conform to IS 4397 and, therefore, required confiscation and penalties.

4. The appellants argued that the goods did conform to IS 4397 based on their internal material specifications and quality standards. They provided evidence from purchase orders, invoices, and test certificates to support their claim.

5. The BIS clarification was crucial in determining the quality of the imported goods and whether they fell under the scope of Notification No. 44. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants that the goods did not require BIS registration, as they did not match the specifications outlined in the notification.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellants based on the evidence presented regarding the conformity of the imported goods to the relevant standards and specifications.