2023 (8) TMI 569 - HC - Customs

Direction to the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to clear the goods by undertaking the exercise as directed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) - HELD THAT - On perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), it is quite clear that the Appellate Authority had taken into consideration the necessary requirements, which were required to be complied by the importer in regard to the compliance of the BIS requirements and also under the CRO. It is held by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) that such exercise could be validly undertaken by the Petitioner, so that the goods can be cleared for consumption in the domestic market, after the labelling requirements are fulfilled under the supervision of the Customs Authorities, which was held to be a permissible course of action in law, including the circular issued by the Customs Authorities. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has stated that the Petitioner is ready to undertake the labelling of the impugned goods as per the BIS requirements under the Customs supervision as per the directions of the Customs Authorities. The Petitioner needs to be permitted to clear the goods by undertaking the exercise of labelling of the goods as per the directions of Commissioner Customs (Appeals). The Respondents are, accordingly, directed to permit the Petitioner to clear the goods in terms of the directions of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in his order dated 13th June 2023 - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include the import of goods requiring a "Standard Mark" under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016, confiscation of goods by Customs Authorities, appeal before the Commissioner of Customs, and the direction for labelling of goods for clearance.

Import of Goods Requiring "Standard Mark":
The petitioner imported 59 items requiring a "Standard Mark" under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016. One item lacked the BIS Standard Mark but had a valid registration number. The Customs Authorities confiscated the goods and imposed penalties under the Customs Act, leading to a statutory appeal.

Confiscation and Appeal:
The Customs Authorities confiscated goods for lacking the BIS Standard Mark, despite a valid registration number. The petitioner appealed before the Commissioner of Customs, who directed clearance after labelling as per BIS requirements. The Respondents did not permit clearance, leading to the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus for release of goods.

Commissioner's Order and Relief Sought:
The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) allowed clearance after labelling as per BIS requirements. The petitioner sought relief through a writ of mandamus to direct the Respondents to permit clearance based on the Commissioner's order. The petitioner argued that the Respondents were unjustified in not allowing clearance as per the Commissioner's directions.

Court's Decision and Directions:
The Court noted that the Appellate Authority considered the necessary compliance requirements for BIS and CRO. It held that the goods could be cleared after labelling under Customs supervision, without imposing fines or penalties. The Court directed the Respondents to permit clearance based on the Commissioner's order, without requiring payment of redemption fine or penalty.

Conclusion and Future Appeal:
The Court allowed the petitioner to label the goods under Customs supervision for clearance. The order was subject to the Respondents' right to appeal before the CESTAT. The petitioner was given eight days to complete the labelling, after which the goods should be cleared. All parties' contentions were kept open for any future appeals or interim applications.