9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 526X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der) 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 bou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 12,50,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. Besides this, penalty of Rs. 3,50,000/- was also imposed on the importer under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 1.1 M/s Shah Foils Ltd., Gandhinagar, the Appellant herein holding IEC No. 0804004501 filed three Bills of Entry No. 8799103, 8799140 and 8799138, dated 7.03.2017, for clearance of Prime Stainless Steel Hot Rolled Coils Grade 201, classifiable under sub heading 72201290 of the schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, through its Custom House Broker, M/s Airlift India P. Ltd. On importation, it filed the Bill of Entry on 07.03.2017 for clearance of the goods, after seeking permission from the Joint Commissioner, as the goods did not arrive within period of one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ordered for confiscation of goods imported under the said three Bills of Entry, under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 12,50,000/- under Section 125 of the said Act and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,50,000/- under Section 112(a) of the said Act. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied with the impugned order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Commissioner (Appeals), Customs at Ahmedabad. 1.5. The Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, Ahmedabad after affording opportunity of hearing, passed Order-in-Appeal No. AHM-CUSTM-000-APP-063-18-19, dated 29.06.2018, whereby, he imposed redemption fine of Rs. 12,50,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 and also imposed a penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid Schedule. As the impugned order has been passed without ascertaining the facts as mentioned above, it is arbitrary, illegal and must be set aside. 2.2 The learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that date of reckoning of imports is decided as per para 2.17 of Hand Book of Procedure 2015-20 (HBP) read with para 9.11 of the said Hand Book of Procedure. Clause (a) of para 2.17 of the HBP stipulates that the date of reckoning of import is decided with reference to the date of shipment/dispatch of the goods from supplying country and not the date of arrival of the goods at in Indian Port. Para 9.11 of HBP provides that in case of transportation by sea, the date affixed on the Bill of Lading will be reckoned as the date of shipme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required. 2.4 The Learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the following decided cases :- (a) M/s. METRO BRIGHT BAR INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUNDRA 2020 (373) E.L.T. 142 (Tri. - Ahmd.) (b) M/s. ROYAL IMPEX Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI-II- 2019 (360) ELT 820, Madras- 2019 (366) E.L.T. 820 (Mad.) 3. The Learned Authorised Representative, Shri M.P. Solanki, Assistant Commissioner, reiterated that the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order is liable to be confirmed and no interference is required in it. He vehemently argued that Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control Order) 2016 was known to the appellant at the time of import of goods on the date of shipment. Therefore, it was the duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 4.1 In my view, 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. 4.2 It is pertinent to note here that in M/s. METRO BRIGHT BAR INDIA PVT. LTD. (Supra), the Hon'ble CESTAT Ahmedabad has held that the Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control Order) 2016 come in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
