2025 (2) TMI 526 - AT - Customs

Confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - requirement to affix BIS mark on the product imported - adjudicating authority failed to consider the submissions made by the appellant during the course of hearing - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - There is no controversy in so far as the shipment of goods on 13.01.2017 is concerned. On that date Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control Order) 2016 had not come into force. The provisions of Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control Order) 2016 came into effect from 7th February 2017. Therefore in view of para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020 the date of import shall be reckoned as the date of shipment/ dispatch of goods. The Bill of Lading contains the date of January- 2017 when the Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control Order) 2016 was not in force. Therefore in these circumstances the appellant was not duty bound to affix BIS mark on the Stainless Steel imported by them. The submission of the Authorised Representative that as the appellant was having full knowledge regarding the provisions of Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control Order) 2016 at the time of shipment/dispatch of the goods from the supplying country therefore they were duty bound to affix the BIS mark on the Stainless Steel is not tenable and does not appear convincing. It is pertinent to note here that in M/s. METRO BRIGHT BAR INDIA PVT. LTD. 2020 (5) TMI 227 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD the Hon ble CESTAT Ahmedabad has held that the Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control Order) 2016 come into force on 07.02.2017. This order was not in force in the month of January- 2017 when the goods in question were shipped. Therefore the appellant was not required to affix BIS mark on the product imported by them. Conclusion - The BIS mark was not required for goods imported before the Quality Control Order came into force. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

The legal judgment issued by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD addressed the following core legal issues:1. Whether the Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control Order) 2016 was applicable to the goods imported by the appellant?2. Whether the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice?3. What is the correct date of import reckoning for the goods in question?The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties and analyzed the relevant legal framework and precedents. The key findings and conclusions are as follows:Issue 1: Applicability of the Quality Control Order- The appellant argued that the goods imported were strips of grade 201 and not plates or sheets covered under the Quality Control Order.- The Commissioner (Appeals) erroneously held that the goods fell under the Quality Control Order without confirming if they conformed to the relevant standards.- The Tribunal found that the Quality Control Order came into effect after the goods were shipped, and hence, the appellant was not required to comply with it.- The impugned order was set aside on this ground.Issue 2: Violation of Principles of Natural Justice- The appellant contended that the impugned order was passed without considering their submissions during the hearing.- The Tribunal did not find merit in this argument and did not provide further analysis or reasoning on this issue.Issue 3: Date of Import Reckoning- The appellant argued that the date of import should be considered as the date of shipment, not the date of arrival at the Indian port.- The Tribunal agreed with this argument, citing relevant provisions from the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020.- The Tribunal referenced a previous case to support the appellant's position that the BIS mark was not required for goods imported before the Quality Control Order came into force.- Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.Significant Holdings:- The Tribunal established that the Quality Control Order did not apply to the goods imported by the appellant due to the timing of shipment.- The correct date of import reckoning was determined to be the date of shipment, not the date of arrival at the Indian port.- The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order based on the above analysis and findings.