2021 (8) TMI 715 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of imported goods - levy of fine on re-export - levy of penalty - goods declared as Hand Mixer - requirement with the compliance with mandatory BIS compliance - Bill of Entry not certified by the BIS authorities - HELD THAT - There is no dispute on the identity or declared description of the goods and the respondent has not held that the appellant had wrongly declared the description for the purpose of overcoming the BIS standard and there is no finding in the impugned order that what is under import is Handheld blender and not Handheld Mixer as declared by the appellant. Further it is found that without such an express findings, the conclusion drawn by the responded that the goods are covered by BIS Kitchen Appliances (Quality Control) Order is not sustainable. Handheld Mixer and the Handheld Blender are entirely different products having different specifications, mechanisms, performance, speed, power and even meant for performing different tasks. The differences between the two products have been cited above and perusal of those differences clearly shows that the language of the said standard itself would draw a clear distinction between Handheld Blender and Handheld Mixer - Further the contention of the Department that the said product was examined by the authorised officer of the BIS posted at Cochin and he has confirmed that the imported apparatus is liable for mandatory BIS compliance as Handheld Blender is without any basis and has been raised only for the first time at the time of argument. No such reference to the authorised officer of BIS or his opinion has neither been provided to the appellant nor made part of the impugned Order-in-Original and not even produced before this Tribunal. Therefore, this stand of the Department has no basis and is liable to be rejected. The appellant has given clear distinctions of tasks that can be performed by Hand blender and Hand Mixer and the said table has been reproduced above. In view of these facts, the Handheld Blenders and Handheld Mixers are two different products and having different specifications, mechanisms, performance, speed, power and even built for performing different tasks. Further, the impugned goods are not liable to have a BIS compliance as mentioned in BIS Kitchen Appliances (Quality Control) Order, 2018 as the same is not applicable in the impugned goods. The Customs authorities are directed to release the goods on payment of appropriate customs duty which the appellant has already paid as per his submissions - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of imported goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Applicability of Bureau of India Standards (BIS) compliance for the imported goods.
3. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty under Sections 125 and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Confiscation of Imported Goods:
The appellant imported goods declared as "Hand Mixer" models and their spare parts. The Customs Department raised an objection that the goods required mandatory BIS compliance, which was not met. Consequently, the Commissioner of Customs ordered the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. The appellant argued that the goods were incorrectly classified as requiring BIS compliance and that the description provided was accurate.

2. Applicability of BIS Compliance:
The primary contention revolved around whether the imported goods were "Handheld Blenders" or "Handheld Mixers." The BIS Kitchen Appliances (Quality Control) Order, 2018 mandates compliance for Handheld Blenders but not for Handheld Mixers. The appellant provided detailed distinctions between the two products, highlighting differences in specifications, mechanisms, performance, speed, power, and tasks performed. The appellant argued that the goods were Handheld Mixers, which do not fall under the mandatory BIS compliance. The Department's claim that the goods were Handheld Blenders was not supported by explicit findings or evidence in the impugned order.

3. Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty:
The Commissioner allowed the appellant to redeem the confiscated goods on payment of a fine of ?3 lakhs under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, solely for re-export. Additionally, a penalty of ?2 lakhs was imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant complied with these orders but contested the classification and the subsequent penalties.

Judgment Analysis:
The Tribunal reviewed the facts and arguments presented by both sides. It noted that there was no dispute on the identity or declared description of the goods as Handheld Mixers. The Tribunal found that the Department's conclusion that the goods required BIS compliance was not substantiated by clear evidence or express findings that the goods were Handheld Blenders. The Tribunal also noted the absence of any reference to or opinion from the BIS authorities in the impugned order.

The Tribunal concluded that Handheld Mixers and Handheld Blenders are distinct products with different specifications and uses. It rejected the Department's argument that the goods required BIS compliance, as this was raised for the first time during arguments and was not part of the original order. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and directing the Customs authorities to release the goods upon payment of the appropriate customs duty, which the appellant had already paid.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, and the confiscation, fine, and penalty orders were set aside. The Customs authorities were directed to release the goods as they did not fall under the mandatory BIS compliance requirements.