9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1063X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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. Lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riefly stated the fact of the case are that the appellant has imported CRGO sheets / coils. On the basis of an intelligence received, it appeared to the Department, that the appellant was importing Secondary grade goods and were declaring the same to the Prime goods . Goods (CRGO Sheets) imported by the appellant, as detailed below, were seized. Sl. No. B/E No/ Date Quantity (in MTs) Name of Importer Seized at 1 2009758/ 11.02.2019 27.005 M/s Shree Chamunda Enterprises CFS- M/s Apollo Logistics, Nhava Sheva 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er A/85189/2022 dated 03.03.2022 has allowed the appeal by way of remand back to the Original Authority for consideration of the request for provisional release considering the test report, policy provisions and other submissions made by the appellant. The impugned order has been passed in pursuant of the final order by this Tribunal. Therefore, the appellants are before us. 3. Shri Anil Balani, Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that imported goods worth around 2 Cr are pending release for more than 3 years. They have deposited an amount of Rs 1.53 Cr already; the appellants are incurring huge losses in addition to demurrage charges. He submits that the allegation of the Department is not correct; the appellants and the others h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the cause title. He further submits that as per the investigation conducted, it is revealed that the appellants have submitted forged/fabricated Mill Test Certificates (MTC) and have not satisfied the conditions laid down in the policy. He submits that as per Steel and Steel Products (Quality Control Order) 2012 dated 02.03.2012 (i) the products have to conform to the specified standards, (ii) they have to bear the standard mark of the BIS, and (iii) the manufacturer has to obtain the requisite certification of BIS. 5. Learned Authorized Representative further submits that as per above not only the good be as per specifications of BIS, the product should bear BIS marks and the manufacturer needs to have BIS license/ registrati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d order. The goods are as per the BIS specification IS:-3034. Now the Department raises an objection that it is not enough the goods are BIS compliant; the manufacturer is also required to be registered with/ licensed by the BIS; the appellant has submitted forged/fabricated Mill Test Certificate to show secondary goods as primary goods and thus the conditions specified by the imports are not satisfied. On the other hand Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that internationally such goods are manufactured by reputed companies like Thysson Krupp or Tata s etc; the name of the manufacturer can be ascertained from the CRGO sheets; the Sheets indicate the name of the manufacturer; goods are manufactured by the original manufacturer and no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the goods is concerned. We find that 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. 8. We find that 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
